…by Jonas E. Alexis and David Livingtone
As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. With all due respect, our colleague Michael Shrimpton is so blind that it seems that no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise. Why do I say that?
Shrimpton obviously knows that perpetual wars in the Middle East have created untold misery both in the West and in the Middle East. In fact, I had a long dialogue with him about these issues a few years ago. He knows that the war in Iraq alone will cost America at least six trillion dollars. He knows that the war itself was perpetuated by the Neoconservatives, a group of largely Jewish ideologues who want to create, in the words of Michael Ledeen himself, “creative destruction” in the Middle East.
He had no serious interaction with the evidence that the author presented. As I responded to him then:
This is where you are quite far away from the scholarly sources and this is where you and I completely diverge. As far as the historical sources are concerned, you and I are living on a different planet. I find it completely puzzled that you quickly dismiss Cambridge University Press by saying that “the imprint itself is unreliable.” This is known as the genetic fallacy in logic! I am pretty sure you know that, since you are a lawyer.
Furthermore, some of the writers I mentioned are Jews and Israelis. For example, Benny Morris is an Israeli historian and a flaming Zionist. All his books are based on archival documents. But he defended Israel’s ethnic cleansing by comparing it with other atrocities in history. I simply could not believe that you completely threw all these studies out the window by saying that they are unreliable. Completely irresponsible.
You move on to conclude that “So far from being expelled many of the Palestinians simply sold their land to Jews and emigrated.” Do you honestly believe this? And do you see why I had to respond to some of your irresponsible, incoherent and historically vacuous comments? Do you see why I simply cannot believe a person of your statue would posit statements like this?
Notice that there is nothing in the response which even remotely suggests that I attack Shrimpton personally, but he responded again by saying that I attacked him personally.
In any event, in his latest article, Shrimpton suggests that for the United States to pull out of Syria is a bad move because it would revive ISIS and increase Russian and Iranian influence in the Middle East. This is again absolutely balderdash. Shrimpton again must know that the Israelis have allied with ISIS, Al-Nusra, and other terrorist groups in Syria in order to oust Assad for years. In an article published by the Jerusalem Post, “Israel wanted Assad gone since start of Syria civil war,” Former Israeli ambassador to US Michael Oren unequivocally declared:
“The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”
The million-dollar question is: Who were the bad guys? Well, Oren himself continued to say that the bad guys were affiliated to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. “We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” Oren said. “Still, the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.”
No matter how you cut it, America was in Syria for Israel, not for “democracy” and “freedom.” In fact, there is no oil in Syria. In fact, Assad, like Saddam Hussein, protected the small minority of Christians in Syria. Even the BBC, of all places, acknowledged this, though they had a strange way of getting around that fact. Similarly, Syria’s Christians backed Assad.
Yohanna Ibrahim, Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan of Aleppo, at a religious summit in France, declared: “We do not support those who are calling for the fall of the regime, simply because we are [for] the process of reform and changes.” The International Christian Concern released a report which said in part:
“Christian service has flourished remarkably in Syria. We regard Syria as a model Arab country when it comes to freedom of worship… “Christians are the first to be persecuted when we talk about governmental change.”
The International Christian Concern continued: “We are seeking [Christians’] help to prevent what happened in Iraq and Egypt from happening in Syria. Christian service in Syria is in danger now.” Why? Because the so-called rebels and other terrorist groups were making it impossible for Christians and other minority groups to exercise their freedom of worship. Even the British newspaper, the Telegraph, made it clear that “nearly half the rebel fighters in Syria” are either jihadists or radical terrorists.
In other words, Israel and the United States were responsible for the chaos in Syria. If this seems farfetched again, then ask Jewish Neocon Daniel Pipes. Pipes wrote that “Western governments should respond by helping the rebels to prevent Assad from crushing them.” Pipes moved on to expand and expound on his essentially Talmudic thesis this way: “the West should prevent either side in the civil war from emerging victorious by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong their conflict.’”
If you did not catch that wicked and, quite frankly, diabolical ideology, here is the translation: let Assad and the Syrian terrorists fight until they destroy each other. Let them fight until blood flows from all over Syria. It doesn’t matter how long it takes or how much it would cost America and the Middle East, the West should give his last drop of blood to support that hellish plan. Let mothers and decent civilians weep and mourn for their children and love ones and their cherished country. Pipes only cares about Israel. He perceived, “This policy recommendation of ‘helping whichever side is losing’ sounds odd, I admit, but it is strategic.”
Here Pipes’ conscience was telling him that the plan was wicked, but he seemed to have suppressed his moral and practical reasoning and replaced it with what seemed to be Talmudic mores. If this plan is not diabolical, then nothing is. And any individual who is supporting more wars in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, is not a friend to the average American. He is a friend of the Jewish oligarchs who continue to push for ethnic cleansing and more in the Middle East. It’s just that simple.
Shrimpton moves on to perpetuate one categorical lie after another, such as the following:
“No one has told President Trump why Britain and America went to war with Iraq. It’s because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 up to his scrawny little neck, around which a noose was eventually placed.”
There is not a single scholarly study that can really prove this flimsy assertion. In fact, scholarly works by people like John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard have completely debunked this claim. Paul R. Pillar, an academic and 28-year veteran of the CIA, has also written on similar themes.
In short, the war in Syria is not about liberating the Syrians. It is about a pernicious ideology. David Livingstone will enlighten us more here.
David Livingstone: The Syrian “civil war” is wholly funded and directed by the West. It is part of the Arab Spring whose purpose is to “sow chaos from Morocco to Afghanistan.” In turn, this reflects the Cabalist doctrine that “order” (i.e. NWO tyranny) will arise out of destruction. The take-away? We’re not likely to see peace until all “resistance” to the NWO, real and imagined, is quelled.
What’s happening in Syria has nothing to do with the supposed use of chemical weapons, and everything to do with the imperial ambitions of the state of Israel which is wielding its power through its infamous lobby to use American might to carry out its objectives in the region.
Among the leading neoconservatives in this cabal has been Michael Ledeen, holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute and a founding member of JINSA. As Robert Lind wrote in a 2003 article for Salon: “the major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel.”
Already in 2002, Ledeen was pronouncing that an invasion of Iraq would follow, and that it would be a good thing, because, it will give “us” a chance to “ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution.” Summing up his Machiavellian motives, Ledeen clarified, “Paradoxically, we advanced the cause of freedom by violently undemocratic means.” Ledeen further explained:
“Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace… We must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”
Evidently, the countries Ledeen listed in the Middle East do not present a “clear and present” danger to the United States. All these abstract articulations were designed to hide the ignoble pursuit of Israeli foreign policy objectives, as outlined in A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the “Clean Break” report), a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, then Prime Minister of Israel.
The report explained a new approach to solving Israel’s security problems in the Middle East through an appeal to “western values.” Among the policies proposed was, “rather than pursuing a ‘comprehensive peace’ with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to “contain, destabilize, and roll-back” those entities that are threats to all three.”
On how to address these threats, it recommends, “Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.”
CREATIVE DESTRUCTION = PREEMPTIVE ACTION I.E. AGGRESSION
Preemptive action was considered required in Lebanon because of an agreement between Israel and the US that Iranian nuclear plants would eventually have to be bombed. If that were to happen, Iran would use the Hezbollah in Lebanon to attack Israel. Thus Hezbollah would have to be disarmed and Israel would use force as soon as a pretext became available.
Similarly, because Iraq “could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly” Israel should back Jordan in its efforts to redefine Iraq, and by “supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging–through influence in the U.S. business community–investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.”
Political commentator Phyllis Bennis pointed to the obvious similarities between the strategies outlined in the Clean Break and the subsequent 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Already in September 2006, Taki of The American Conservative reported:
…recently, Netanyahu suggested that President Bush had assured him Iran will be prevented from going nuclear. I take him at his word. Netanyahu seems to be the main mover in America’s official adoption of the 1996 white paper A Clean Break, authored by him and American fellow neocons, which aimed to aggressively remake the strategic environments of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. As they say in boxing circles, three down, two to go.
Just prior to America’s invasion of Iraq, Brian Whitaker had reported in The Guardian in 2002 that “with several of the Clean Break paper’s authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to transcend its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it.” Speaking to the grandiose ambitions of the neoconservative, as Michael Ledeen outlined:
Our unexpectedly quick and impressive victory in Afghanistan is a prelude to a much broader war, which will in all likelihood transform the Middle East for at least a generation, and reshape the politics of many other countries around the world.
Similarly, Richard Perle’s 2004 book An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, coauthored with fellow neoconservative David Frum defends the invasion of Iraq and described important neoconservative aspirations, including ways to abandon all Israeli-Palestinian peace processes, invade Syria, Iran’s strategic ally in the region, Syria. Perle and Frum conclude, shamelessly: “For us, terrorism remains the great evil of our time, and the war against this evil, our generation’s great cause… There is no middle way for Americans: it is victory or holocaust.”
DEMOCRACY: A PRETEXT
The upheavals of the Arab Spring fall within the context of George W. Bush’s Greater Middle East Project, proclaimed after 2001 to bring “democracy” and “liberal free market” economic reform to the Islamic countries from Afghanistan to Morocco. As William Engdahl was reporting in April 2011, “contrary to the carefully-cultivated impression that the Obama Administration is trying to retain the present regime of Mubarak, Washington in fact is orchestrating the Egyptian as well as other regional regime changes from Syria to Yemen to Jordan and well beyond in a process some refer to as ‘creative destruction.'”
In advance of the several revolutions of the Arab Spring, as the Wall Street Journal was already reporting in 2007, the State Department’s intelligence unit organized a conference of Middle East experts to examine the merits of engagement, particularly in Egypt and Syria, with the Muslim Brotherhood, the CIA’s primary tool of destabilization in the Middle East. According to officials, US diplomats and politicians have also met with legislators from parties connected to the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq, to hear their views on democratic reforms in the Middle East.
As Engdahl reveals, the template for such covert regime change was developed by the Pentagon, US intelligence and various think-tanks such as the ubiquitous RAND Corporation, Freedom House and US government-funded NGO, National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The NED is active in all the countries that have experienced “spontaneous” popular uprisings: Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Sudan. As the architect and first head of the NED, Allen Weinstein told the Washington Post in 1991, “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”
Similarly, on behalf of the Americans, armed and Saudi-funded Salafis have been brought in to help destabilize the government of Syria. American subversive activities in Syria have been coordinated through a Muslim Brotherhood-connected organization, the National Salvation Front (NSF), which unites liberal democrats, Kurds, Marxists and former Syrian officials in an effort to transform President Assad’s regime. The founders of the NSF were Ali Sadreddin Al Bayanouni who took over as president of the Brotherhood’s Syrian arm in 1979, and Abdul Halim Khaddam, Syria’s vice president until 2005 who criticized Assad’s rule and fled to Paris.
Initial contact between the White House and the NSF was forged by Najib Ghadbian, a University of Arkansas political scientist, who suggested the US work with his group and its contacts, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Ghadbian began meeting with the deputies of prominent neoconservative and former Iran-Contra operative Elliot Abrams, the White House’s chief Middle East adviser in 2006. Through these intermediaries, as the Wall Street Journal reported, “The White House exhorted the NSF to build a wide coalition of opposition groups and to run it in a transparent and democratic manner.”
Khazarian Mafia BEHIND SYRIAN “INSURGENCY”
As noted by Charlie Skelton in The Guardian, “indeed, a number of key figures in the Syrian opposition movement are long-term exiles who were receiving US government funding to undermine the Assad government long before the Arab spring broke out.” Generally recognized as “the main opposition coalition” is the Syrian National Council (SNC). Also a part of the NSF group, The Washington Times described the SNC as “an umbrella group of rival factions based outside Syria.”
The most senior of the SNC’s official spokespeople is the Paris-based Syrian academic Bassma Kodmani, who in 2012 attended her second Bilderberg conference. In 2005, Kodmani was working in Cairo for the Ford Foundation, a traditional CIA front organization, and in September of that year, was made the executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative (ARI), a research program of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
More specifically, the ARI was initiated by a group within the CFR called the “US/Middle East Project,” chaired by General (Ret.) Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser to the US president, also listed in Sibel Edmond’s “State Secrets Privilege Gallery.” Sitting alongside Scowcroft was Zbigniew Brzezinski, founder of the Trilateral Commission, and Carter’s National Security advisor, who instigated the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Earlier in 2005, the CFR assigned “financial oversight” of the project to the Centre for European Reform (CER). The CER is overseen by Lord Kerr, the deputy chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, a former head of the diplomatic service and a senior adviser at the influential British think-tank, Chatham House….
Ideally, Muslims will soon awake to the deception, as next on the Neoconservative agenda is Iran. As he once cried wolf about the Soviet sponsorship of international terrorism, Ledeen rails against Iranian terrorism in his recent book The Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We’ll Win. According to the Pacific News Service of May 19, Ledeen gave a speech at a JINSA policy forum on April 30, 2011, titled “Time to Focus on Iran–The Mother of Modern Terrorism.”
-  Ernesto Londono, “Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion,” Washington Post, March 28, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, The $6 Trillion Wars,” The Nation, March 29, 2013; “Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study,” Huffington Post, May 14, 2013; Mark Thompson, “The $5 Trillion War on Terror,” Time, June 29, 2011; “Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have been done?,” LA Times, March 18, 2013.
-  See for example Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and Public Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014); Michael MacDonald, Overreach: Delusions of Regime Change in Iraq (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014). For similar studies, see Bernd Hamm, Devastating Society: The Neo-Conservative Assault on Democracy and Justice (Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press, 2005).
-  Michael Ledeen, “Creative Destruction,” Jewish World Review, September 21, 2001.
-  Herb Keinon, “’Israel wanted Assad gone since start of Syria civil war,’” Jerusalem Post, September 17, 2013.
-  Ibid.
-  “Why Did Assad, Saddam and Mubarak Protect Christians?,” BBC, October 14, 2011; see also Christina Wilkie, “Rand Paul: Assad ‘Protected Christians’ in Syria, Rebels ‘Attacking Christians,’” Huffington Post, September 1, 2011; “Obama: Assad Protected Christians In Syria,” MintPress News, September 12, 2014.
-  “Syria’s Christians Back Assad,” Christianity Today, July 7, 2011.
-  Ibid.
-  Ibid.
-  Ben Farmer, “Syria: Nearly Half Rebel Fighters Are Jihadists or Hardline Islamists, Says HIS’s Report,” Telegraph, September 15, 2013.
-  Daniel Pipes, “Support the Syrian Rebels?,” National Review, May 12, 2013.
-  Ibid.
-  Ibid.
-  John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007).
-  Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.