By on the ground journalist Afraa Dagher
Source: Syrian News
On Monday 5 September, in the morning, six takfiri bombings murdered 40 Syrians and wounded dozens more.

Twin bombings struck Tartous countryside, which suffered the largest casualties. A car was remotely detonated on Arazona bridge and was followed by a double tap suicide bomber to kill those who rushed to help the wounded.

In al Hasaka, a motorcycle was remotely detonated on the roundabout, killing 5 and injuring 2. Another car bomb exploded at the entrance of Bab Tadmur neighborhood in Homs, martyring 4 and wounding 10.

The West does not ask the “moderate” terrorists to stop bombing Syria.

The double suicide bombers in al Sabbounoura (Damascus) only killed one, and injured 3.

These six bombings come one day after Israel launched three missiles against Syrian Arab Army military sites. Israeli media reported the breach of Syrian sovereignty as “retaliation” for a mortar landing in the Israel occupied Syrian Golan, from the non-occupied Golan. Though Israel is not specifically a member of the fascist coalition bombing the SAR on a regular basis, Israel has independently bombed the SAR on more than one dozen occasions since the crisis was launched in 2011. It is no secret that Israel has frequently come to the rescue of the terrorist al Qaeda factions against Syria.

In her report from Syria, Afraa Dagher notes that the new spike in terror is related to recent and significant gains made by the Syrian Arab Army (committed to liberating all of Syria from the terrorists).

In her report from Syria, Afraa Dagher notes that the new spike in terror is related to recent and significant gains made by the Syrian Arab Army (committed to liberating all of Syria from the terrorists).

By Maram Susli
Source: New Eastern Outlook
Last month, US secretary of State John Kerry called for Syria to be partitioned saying it was “Plan B” if negotiations fail. But in reality this was always plan A. Plans to balkanize Syria, Iraq and other Middle Eastern states were laid out by former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a 2006 trip to Tel Aviv. It was part of the so called “Project For a New Middle East”. This was a carbon copy of the Odid Yinon plan drawn up by Israel in 1982. The plan outlined the way in which Middle Eastern countries could be balkanized along sectarian lines. This would result in the creation of several weak landlocked micro-states that would be in perpetual war with each other and never united enough to resist Israeli expansionism.

“Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan… ” Oded Yinon, “A strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”,

The leaked emails of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reveal advocates of the Oded Yinon plan were behind the US push for regime change in Syria. An Israeli intelligence adviser writes in an email to Hillary,

“The fall of the House of Assad could well ignite a sectarian war between the Shiites and the majority Sunnis of the region drawing in Iran, which, in the view of Israeli commanders would not be a bad thing for Israel and its Western allies,”.

Kerry’s plan B comment came right before UN’s special envoy de Mistura said federalism would be discussed at the Geneva talks due to a push from major powers. Both side’s of the Geneva talks, the Syrian Government and the Syrian National Coalition flat out rejected Federalism. Highlighting the fact that the idea did not come from the Syrian’s themselves. The Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Al Jaafari, said that the Idea of federalization would not be up for discussion. “Take the idea of separating Syrian land out of your mind,” he would say.

But some may not completely understand the full implications of federalism and how it is intrinsically tied to balkanization. Some cite the fact that Russia and the United States are successful federations as evidence that federation is nothing to fear. However the point that makes these federalism statements so dangerous is that in accordance with the Yinon plan the borders of a federalized Syria would be drawn along sectarian lines not on whether any particular state can sustain its population. This means that a small amount of people will get all the resources, and the rest of Syria’s population will be left to starve. Furthermore, Russia and the US are by land mass some of the largest nations in the world, so federalism may make sense for them. In contrast Syria is a very small state with limited resources. Unlike the US and Russia, Syria is located in the Middle East which means water is limited. In spite of the fact Syria is in the so-called fertile crescent, Syria has suffered massive droughts since Turkey dammed the rivers flowing into Syria and Iraq. Syria’s water resources must be rationed amongst its 23 million people. In the Middle East, wars are also fought over water.The areas that the Yinon plan intends to carve out of Syria, are the coastal areas of Latakia and the region of Al Hasake. These are areas where a substantial amount of Syria’s water, agriculture and oil are located. The intention is to leave the majority of the Syrian population in a landlocked starving rump state, and create a situation where perpetual war between divided Syrians is inevitable. Ironically promoters of the Yinon plan try and paint federalism as a road to peace. However, Iraq which was pushed into federalism in 2005 by the US occupation is far from peaceful now.

Quite simply, divide and conquer is the plan. This was even explicitly suggested in the headline of Foreign Policy magazine, “Divide and conquer Iraq and Syria” with the subheading “Why the West Should Plan for a Partition”. The CEO of Foreign Policy magazine David Rothkopf is a member of to the Council of Foreign Relations, a think tank Hillary Clinton has admited she bases her policies on. Another article by Foreign Policy written by an ex-NATO commander James Stavridis, claims “It’s time to talk about partitioning Syria” .

The US hoped to achieve this by empowering the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist groups, and introducing Al Qaeda and ISIS into Syria. The Syrian army was supposed to collapse with soldiers returning to their respective demographic enclaves. Evidence of this could be seen in the headlines of NATO’s media arm in 2012, which spread false rumours that Assad had run to Latakia, abandoning his post in Damascus. The extremists were then supposed to attack Alawite, Christian and Druze villages. The US hoped that enough Alawites, Christians and Druze would be slaughtered that Syria’s minorities would become receptive to the idea of partitioning.

Then NATO planned on shifting narratives from, ‘evil dictator must be stopped” to “ we must protect the minorities”. Turning on the very terrorists they created and backing secessionist movements. There is evidence that this narrative shift had already started to happened by 2014 when it was used to convince the US public to accept US intervention in Syria against ISIS. The US designation of Jabhat Al Nusra as a terrorist organisation in December of 2012 was in preparation for this narrative shift. But this was premature as none of these plans seemed to unfold according to schedule. Assad did not leave Damascus, the Syrian army held together, and Syrian society held onto its national identity.

It could be said that the Yinon plan had some success with the Kurdish PYD declaration of federalization. However, the Kurdish faction of the Syrian national coalition condemned PYD’s declaration. Regardless, the declaration has no legal legitimacy. The region of Al Hasakah where a substantial portion of Syria’s oil and agriculture lies, has a population of only 1.5 million people, 6% of Syria’s total population. Of that, 1.5 million, only 40% are Kurdish, many of which do not carry Syrian passports. PYD’s demand that the oil and water resources of 23 million people be given to a tiny part of its population is unlikely to garner much support amongst the bulk of Syria’s population.

Former US National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger understood that the key to dismembering a nation was attacking its national identity. This entails attacking the history from which this identity is based upon. In an event at Michigan University Kissinger stated that he would like to see Syria balkanized, asserting that Syria is not a historic state and is nothing but an invention of the Sykes-Picot agreement in the 1920’s. Interestingly, Kissinger is using the same narrative as ISIS, who also claims that Syria is a colonial construct. In fact, ISIS has been a key tool for Kissinger and the promoters of the project of a New Middle East, as ISIS has waged a campaign of destruction against both Syrian and Iraqi historical sites.

In spite of efforts to convince the world of the contrary, the region that now encompasses modern day Syria has been called Syria since 605 BC . Sykes-Picot didn’t draw the borders of Syria too large, but instead, too small. Historical Syria also included Lebanon and Iskandaron. Syria and Lebanon were moving towards reunification until 2005, an attempt at correcting what was a sectarian partition caused by the French mandate. Syria has a long history of opposing attempts of divide and conquer, initially the French mandate aimed to divide Syria into 6 separate states based on sectarian lines, but such plans were foiled by Syrian patriots. The architects of the Yinon plan need only have read Syria’s long history of resistance against colonial divisions to know their plans in Syria were doomed to failure.

Maram Susli also known as “Syrian Girl,” is an activist-journalist and social commentator covering Syria and the wider topic of geopolitics. especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook.”

By Brandon Turbeville
Source: Activist Post
The Hillary Clinton emails have recently been released by virtue of Clinton’s use of a private email server, WikiLeaks, and the Freedom of Information Act and they stand as potentially one of the most damning sets of emails ever exposed to the light of day. With 30,322 emails having been written by Clinton and the fact that Clinton herself has been so heavily involved in untold amounts of treachery during her tenure as Secretary of State alone, the emails are a veritable treasure trove of both incriminating information for Clinton and vindicating information for those who have been critical of her in the past.

One email alone regarding the Syrian crisis demonstrates the veracity of what many who have been labeled “conspiracy theorists” have claimed for years – namely, that the United States has organized, directed, and supported the destabilization of Syria for its own geopolitical goals as well as those of Israel.[1] It also confirms the methodology and geopolitical goals behind the destabilization as well as cynical and brazen attempts by the Clinton State Department and Obama White House to go so far as to put Assad’s family in danger in order to intimidate him into abandoning his post.

The email reveals how the United States was determined to destroy Syria both for its own geopolitical purposes but also in order to cripple Iran and Hezbollah, both for the United States and Israel’s benefit, with the essential encirclement and weakening of the Iranian position being one of the goals. Clinton is clearly in favor of a direct U.S. military assault on Syria and all of these objectives, according to the emails, were worth risking a military confrontation with Russia.

For instance, in regards to the question of the possibility of Israel launching a “pre-emptive” attack on Iran, the email, as posted by WikiLeaks, read:

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad. Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world’s major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war.

Clinton continues by explaining the real reason Israel would like to see the Iranians weakened, albeit still propagating the lie that there was ever any evidence to suggest that the Iranians were actually moving toward a nuclear weapon to begin with. Still, she manages to blow the lid on the biggest open secret in the Middle East – the fact that Israel is indeed armed with nuclear weapons. The emails read,

Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself. Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.

Of course, Israel might find itself in a much better situation across the Middle East if it did not consistently provoke its neighbors, threaten warfare, and destabilize the region. It might find its situation more stable if it did not constantly violate the borders of its neighbors. It might find its reputation better if it were not engaged in a systematic attempt to eradicate the people whose land Israeli settlers stole years ago and continue to steal today.

Clinton is somewhat honest in her presentation of the reasoning behind the attempt to destroy Assad, however, when she points to the fact that the destruction of Syria would result in the severance of the Shiite crescent” and the arc of resistance to Anglo-American/Israeli imperialist and geopolitical agendas. Clinton writes,

Speaking on CNN’s Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that “the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran…. It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world…and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.” Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran’s strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran’s nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran’s program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

Clinton then moves on to the question of ensuring that Assad is swayed by the fact that his family is threatened. She says,

The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.

Clinton also writes about how to literally turn the Syrian crisis into Libya 2.0. She states,

The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed. Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi’s regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region. Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement.

Clinton then turns her sights upon the potential war with Russia her foreign policy might cause. She writes,

The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don’t exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. Russian officials have already acknowledged they won’t stand in the way if intervention comes. Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington’s political leaders stay firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war). With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them — and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war.

Not only is it incredibly frightening to envision a Secretary of State, much less a President, who so indifferent to such a potentially catastrophic consequence of her actions, it is quite telling since she clearly asserted that the Russians would simply not respond and would knuckle under when faced with the might of the United States. How very wrong Clinton was.

At worst, the email shows a Hillary Clinton knowingly working toward the destruction of a secular reformist and sovereign government with the acknowledged result of mass civilian deaths for the benefit of geopolitical interests of both the United States and other nations with little concern for the fact that such military action could very well provoke a third world war scenario with a nuclear power. At best, Clinton shows herself to be unmatched in her incompetence since she was willing to provoke a war with Russia for her own agenda, believing that Russia would not respond. Neither of these portrayals qualify her for anything other than a prolonged stay at a psychiatric hospital or prison.

Notes:
[1] UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015

Source: Global Research
A newly-released Hilary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the “best way to help Israel.”

In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the “right thing” to personally threaten Bashar Assad’s family with death.

In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the “best way to help Israel” is to “use force” in Syria to overthrow the government.

The document was one of many unclassified by the US Department of State under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, following the uproar over Clinton’s private email server kept at her house while she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000, this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact sent on December 31, 2012.

The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government—and specifically to do this because it is in Israel’s interests.

“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad,” Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying.

Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran’s “atom bomb” program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to “justify” destroying Syria in the name of Israel.

She specifically links Iran’s mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Iran’s “atom bomb” program threatens Israel’s “monopoly” on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, Clinton asserts, this would allow Syria (and other “adversaries of Israel” such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt) to “go nuclear as well,” all of which would threaten Israel’s interests.

Therefore, Clinton, says, Syria has to be destroyed.

Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly.

An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.

If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

It is, Clinton continues, the “strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria” that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security.

This would not come about through a “direct attack,” Clinton admits, because “in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel” this has never occurred, but through its alleged “proxies.”

The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.

Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.

Clinton goes on to asset that directly threatening Bashar Assad “and his family” with violence is the “right thing” to do:

In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.

The email proves—as if any more proof was needed—that the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to “protect” Israel.

It is also a sobering thought to consider that the “refugee” crisis which currently threatens to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.

In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to Iraq—all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the “rebels” and stoking the fires of war in Syria.

The real and disturbing possibility that a psychopath like Clinton—whose policy has inflicted death and misery upon millions of people—could become the next president of America is the most deeply shocking thought of all.

Clinton’s public assertion that, if elected president, she would “take the relationship with Israel to the next level,” would definitively mark her, and Israel, as the enemy of not just some Arab states in the Middle East, but of all peace-loving people on earth.

If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

It is, Clinton continues, the “strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria” that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security.

This would not come about through a “direct attack,” Clinton admits, because “in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel” this has never occurred, but through its alleged “proxies.”

The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.

Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.

Clinton goes on to asset that directly threatening Bashar Assad “and his family” with violence is the “right thing” to do:

In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.

The email proves—as if any more proof was needed—that the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to “protect” Israel.

Source: New Eastern Outlook
By Maram Susli
The discovery of the Leviathan gas field within Israeli and Cypriot waters has made Israel a potential energy exporting nation. However the means to transport the gas to the large energy markets of Europe continues to elude Israel. Recent talks between Turkey and Israel about plans to build a gas pipeline, through Turkey and into Europe, have been extensively reported.

Many of the reports claim the discussions are the results of the thaw in relations between Turkey and Israel. The rift was supposedly caused by Israel’s attack on the MV MarMara, the aid ship attempting to break Israel’s siege on Gaza in 2010, and the execution of 8 Turkish citizens on board the ship. But even during this period of “tense” relations, discussions about the gas pipeline were still being held between Turkey and Israel. Trade between the two states went up by 25%.

The tense relations were a facade, a face saving measure that allowed Turkish President Erdogan to portray an image of a patriotic defender of Turkish citizens, and a champion of Islam and the Palestinian cause. During the initial uproar of the flotilla incident, Erdogan promised the next flotilla would be escorted by the Turkish navy. Instead Erdogan blocked the Mavi MarMara from heading to Gaza. Far from defending the Palestinian cause, Turkey continued to produce Israel’s Military combat boots which are used in the occupation of the West bank. Relations with Turkey improved even though Israel’s treatment of Palestinians did not improve. This reveals the extent of which Turkey’s foreign policy is drenched in hypocrisy.

For both Israel and Turkey, business comes first. Israel is also juggling a foreign policy inconsistent with its portrayed image of being at the forefront of the war on terrorism. The fact that Turkey is one of Al-Qaeda’s and ISIS’s main benefactors , has not been an issue for Israel. Even when ISIS beheaded Israeli journalist Steven Sotloff while Turkey was allowing ISIS to use its border as a smuggling route, Israeli-Turkish relations were not harmed.

Israel and Turkey have a shared agenda in Syria, which has stood in the many business plans between the respective states. Long Gas pipelines can only be built economically in shallow waters hugging coastlines, or future repairs would be difficult. The planned Turkey-Israel pipeline could potentially have to go through Syria’s exclusive economic zone which extends 370 km off the Syrian coastline. Israel illegally occupies Syrian land and has been in a state of cold war with Syria for decades. Both Israel and Turkey would economically benefit from the dismantlement of the Syrian State through the support of terrorist groups operating in the country. Several American think tanks have been promoting the balkanization of Syria and separating its coastal region from the rest of the country. Armed Forces Journal published plans to balkanise Syria in 2006, preliminary talks on the gas pipeline between Turkey-Israel were also held that year. Such a breakdown of the Syrian state would clear the path for Israel and Turkey to build a pipeline across Syria’s coastal region, and ISIS is the tool by which this can be achieved.

In recent years, Syria has also stood in the way of Turkey’s goal of becoming a pipeline hub. While Turkey doesn’t have much oil and gas resources of its own, it can still profit from the resources of surrounding nations by forcing all gas pipelines through its borders and then onto Europe. But in 2009, Syrian president Assad refused to sign the proposed agreement that would allow a pipeline through Syria connecting Qatari gas to Turkey and onto European markets. Assad said this was to protect the interests of his Russian allies who are the main suppliers of gas to Europe. Russia was negotiating its own gas pipeline deal with Turkey which was shelved after Turkey shot down a Russian jet. The new Leviathan pipeline deal with Israel would resurrect Turkey’s hope of becoming a pipeline hub again. But once again Syria stands in the way, which is why Turkey has chosen a policy of sending ISIS terrorists across the border to destabilise Syria. This policy has already allowed Turkey to supply Syrian oil to Europe, via ISIS oil trucks.

Israel itself has been supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS inside Syria, providing a safe zone and medical treatment in the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan heights. This has gone hand in hand with the discovery of oil in the Golan Heights. The Golan is internationally recognised as Syrian land that was occupied by Israel in 1967. The selling of Syrian oil by Israel would constitute a war crime under the fourth geneva convention. In spite of this, Israel granted a ‘drilling licence’ to a company whose shareholders include Dick Cheney, Rupert Murdoch and Jacob Rothschild in 2013. Israel has been attempting to circumvent international law and annex the Golan Heights for decades. But the Syrian Druze population who inhabit the Golan remain steadfastly loyal to Syria and supportive of the Syrian government and military. Israel is backing Al Qaeda and ISIS in the hope that destabilising the Golan Heights will legitimise Israel’s annexation claims. Israeli President Netanyahu asked Obama to support Israel’s bid to annex to Golan, under the guise of protecting the Syrian Druze population from the very terrorists Israel is supporting. Israel would only be able to sell illegally obtained Syrian oil to Europe through their Turkish route. Talks between Turkey and Israel as far back as 2006 included not only gas, but oil pipelines as well.

Turkey and Israel have allied themselves with terrorist groups, ISIS and Al Qeada, to dismantle the Syrian state and allow for the theft of Syrian energy resources. Israel’s facade of being opposed to terrorism and Turkey’s attempt to portray an image of being champion of Palestinian rights takes second place to that objective. The death of hundreds of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire nation, and the spread of terror throughout the world, are all sacrifices Israel and Turkey are willing to make if it means future oil and gas revenue.

Maram Susli also known as “Syrian Girl,” is an activist-journalist and social commentator covering Syria and the wider topic of geopolitics. especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook.”

Source: Press TV

An overwhelming majority of respondents to a Press TV poll from across the globe says Saudi Arabia’s military aggression against Yemen is totally similar to the Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip.

Of 29,192 people participating in the online poll, which was conducted from May 11 to June 20, 2015, 22,041 believed that the ongoing Saudi military campaign in Yemen is very similar to the Israeli wars against Gaza.

The opinion poll showed 3,198 people maintained that the wars in Yemen and Gaza are relatively similar to each other while 3,953 respondents said they are barely similar.

The respondents included, among others, 7,264 people from the United States, 2,520 from the United Kingdom, 2,044 from Canada, 639 from Australia and 423 from the Netherlands.

The Saudi regime has been bombarding areas across Yemen since March 26 without the mandate of the United Nations in a bid to undermine the Houthi Ansarullah movement and to restore to power fugitive former president, Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi, who is a staunch ally of the Al Saud regime.

Spokesman for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Rupert Colville, said on June 16 that at least 1,410 Yemeni civilians, including 210 women, have been killed and 3,423 have sustained injuries since Saudi Arabia started its military campaign in Yemen.

Israel has blockaded the Gaza Strip for over seven years, causing a humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian enclave. The Israeli regime has since launched three wars on Gaza.

Tel Aviv started its latest war on the Gaza Strip in early July 2014. The offensive ended on August 26, 2014, with a truce that took effect after indirect negotiations in the Egyptian capital, Cairo.

Nearly 2,200 Palestinians, including 577 children, were killed in Israel’s 50-day onslaught. Over 11,100 others – including 3,374 children, 2,088 women and 410 elderly people – were also injured.

SF/KA/SS