Israel hit Missiles – the US Pleased – Story Stinks

The news of Israel's strike against Syria is beginning to come out fairly quickly now that the story has broken. CNN's reporting is confirming much of what has been rumored and what sources had suggested to me several days ago – that the operation was a military strike on arms and not a test of radar or road to Iran. We are still not sure what exactly was hit, but it does seem like missiles. Whether they were being transported or the site was a factory has yet to be cleared up.

Addendum: The CNN story still smells. So now we are told, through unnamed sources, that it was Iranian weapons heading to Hizbullah and clinching the evil axis of Iran-Syria-Hizbullah. 

But why would Iran be flying to the Lieberman-Damascus International airport only to be transported back to Deir al-Zur and then toted back to Lebanon? Or, Why would Iran be flying to Deir? It doesn't make sense.

The real reason this doesn't make sense is that if Israel had intelligence that Syria was violating UNCR 1701 and acted on it, they would have trumpeted the happy news to the world, rather than sit on it for a week.

Where are the family pictures? CNN would be treating us to endless loops of the camera footage from strike aircraft. They play it all the time when they WANT us to see what they hit.

There is still a final chapter here.

CNN: U.S. pleased by Israel's Syria flyover,

The United States reportedly is pleased by Israel's alleged incursion of Syria last week.

The report followed Syria's charge that Israeli warplanes invaded its airspace Sept. 6 and dropped ordnance — an allegation that Israeli and U.S. officials declined to confirm or deny.

According to CNN, the Americans believe that the operation may have involved Israeli ground troops as well as aircraft, and that the incursion may have targeted weapons supplied by Iran and passing through Syria en route to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

CNN quoted a U.S. source as saying the Israeli airstrike "left a big hole in the desert" in Syria.

Syria denies that IDF ground troops participated in overflight op. Jerusalem Post

CNN: writes:

Sources in the U.S. government and military confirmed to CNN's Barbara Starr that the airstrike did happen, and that they are happy to have Israel carry the message to both Syria and Iran that they can get in and out and strike when necessary.

Right now, diplomats in the region are trying to ensure the incident does not escalate.

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, is serving as a conduit between Israeli and Syrian foreign ministers, urging both sides to allow cooler heads to prevail, Solana's office said.

Story Highlights

  • Syria calls incursion a "breach of airspace" in letter to U.N. — France, the current president of the Security Council, said it had received no letter from Syria.
  • Israeli airstrike last week may have targeted weapons stores, sources tell CNN
  • Operation may also have involved ground forces, U.S. and regional sources say
  • Israel Defense Forces has made no comment
  • The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Tuesday lashed out at Israel for intruding Syria's territorial air space last Thursday, the official news agency reported.

    The Best article by an Israeli is by Larry Derfner in the Jerusalem Post, copied below

    For once, Israelis seem to believe that Syria is telling the truth – that Israeli jets invaded Syria's airspace last Thursday, and that Syria fired at our jets but missed.

    The reason Israelis believe the Syrian story is because if it wasn't true, Israel would deny it. Why would Israel deny it? Because countries aren't supposed to fly their jets into another country's airspace without permission. It's considered an invasion. An act of aggression. It gives the invaded country a casus belli – a justification to strike back.

    In short, it's wrong. It's the sort of thing that starts wars, and countries are supposed to try to avoid wars, not start them.

    So Israeli leaders have nothing to say about the Syrian reports. This is the diplomatic equivalent of a wink. Everyone understands.

    What's hard to understand, though, is how the Israeli media can be so docile, so obedient, in the face of such a reckless Israeli act. I was watching Channel 2 Thursday night, and I couldn't believe what I was hearing, or rather not hearing.

    None of the journalists, who clearly assumed that this incident had really taken place, thought it worth mentioning that Israel had just risked starting a war with Syria. None of them challenged Israeli officials on the wisdom of this. All they talked about was what Syria might do now, whether Syria would go to war. That Israel had just provoked Syria, had just escalated the conflict, was the elephant in the newsroom that they pretended not to see.

    This has been the tenor of the coverage ever since – lots of speculation on what Israel was trying to achieve and how Syria might react, hardly a hint about the incredible risk Israel took, about the morality of tossing a lighted match in a dry forest as this country's leaders just did.

    It's almost surrealistic. It's like there's a conspiracy of silence. The people who are supposed to ask questions act as if they've been lobotomized. I feel a little bit like I'm living in a police state.

    What would have happened if Syria had shot down one of our jets? We would have been at war with a country on our northern border that has biological and chemical weapons as well as lots of missiles – and Israel would be guilty of having provoked the war.

    FOR MONTHS now, Israeli political and military leaders have been saying the danger on the border is not that Syria will invade, but that Syria is afraid we will invade, and that one thing will lead to another and a war will break out due to one side "miscalculating" the other's intentions. Implicit in this was that Israel would never invade Syria because Israel doesn't want war, Israel doesn't do things like that, so the real danger was Syria's paranoia.

    Evidently, Syria wasn't so paranoid.

    Since Thursday, spokesmen for this country have been trying to calm everyone down, assuring everyone that Israel doesn't want war.

    What a joke. If Israel wanted to calm things down with Syria, why did it fly its jets into Syrian airspace at a time like this? If Israel doesn't want war, why did it risk war?

    While I'm surprised the Israeli media are just falling quietly into line behind the government and the army, I'm not surprised the Israeli public is doing so. When it's Israel vs. the Arabs, there is no policy too belligerent or too dangerous for a majority of Israelis to support.

    They will accept any official explanation or non-explanation without question, they will put their children's lives at risk with trepidation but without protest – anything rather than wonder aloud whether Israel might be in the wrong this time and the Arab enemy in the right. As was the case on Thursday.

    IT TURNS OUT that nothing has changed since last summer's war in Lebanon. With rare exceptions, the Israeli media didn't ask any questions then, and they aren't asking any questions now. Same with the public. In fact, the situation seems to have gotten worse. Last summer's war was started, after all, by Hizbullah, so even Meretz, even I supported it at first. The failure by the media and the public came later, when they didn't ask what purpose Israel had in continuing the fighting indefinitely. Now we've got a situation where the country has gone mum after its leaders behaved recklessly not in self-defense, as in Lebanon, but in aggression.

    We've set up a strict double standard for ourselves and the Arabs. We believe Israel is entitled to breach Syrian airspace, or Lebanese airspace, because – well, because they're bad and we're good. But if they breach ours? If Syrian jets dared fly over Israeli territory, everybody knows what would happen – we'd shoot them down without a moment's hesitation. And afterward we'd complain to the whole world, we'd say, "You see? The Arabs are trying to kill us all, just like the Nazis." Yet if, on the other hand, Israeli jets fly over Syria – and get away with it? Wink, wink. The little country with the big heart has done it again. Damn, we're good.

    DESPITE WHAT some readers think, I'm not one of those people who blame Israel for all of the Middle East's troubles, who think the Arabs would leave Israel alone if we'd only leave them alone. That's a ridiculous idea. But it's no less ridiculous to claim that Israel wants peace with its whole being and it's only the Arabs who are preventing it. I think Thursday's incident showed otherwise.

    No, I'm one of those people who believe the Middle East is a bloody mess because both the Arabs and the Israelis are oriented to war. I like to think the Arabs are the bigger part of the problem, but even if that's true, we are no small part of it.

    By Larry Derfner

    Comments (69)


    Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

    51. abraham said:

    Danny boy,

    I was referring to this article:

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/903398.html

    Which apparently was titled “NY Times: IAF recently photographed nuclear facilities in Syria” and was written by “Barak Ravid, Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondents and News Agencies”.

    The title of the article has now changed mysteriously, but the headline was reported widely as a quick web search will demonstrate. Or perhaps thousands of people around the globe had a momentary spell of collective hallucination?

    Why is the only demockracy in the Middle East promoting false headlines in one of its flagship newspapers?

    Conspiracy? Noooooooo!

    P.S. Next time read more carefully.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 12th, 2007, 7:27 pm

     

    52. abraham said:

    Solomon2 brayed:

    Maybe not. Under UNSC 1701 clause 15, states may use their flag ships and aircraft to interdict weapons shipments to Hezbollah, even if it isn’t on their territory.

    No state needs permission from Lebanon or Israel to do this because clause 15 is specifically worded to supersede Chapter 6 restrictions (”Decides further -”). No consent from a third-party state like Syria appears to be required under the resolution for a strike on its territory for this purpose.

    Why would you write something so stupid? Unless…

    I’m not sure what passes for intelligence in whatever shit hole country you come from, but where I’m standing, such a remark would automatically earn you the title of Village Idiot.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 12th, 2007, 7:31 pm

     

    53. SimoHurtta said:

    SIMOHURTTA, an extended discussion of the language and meaning of UNSC 1701 is available here.

    The guy is refereeing to himself as “evidence”. Only village idiots do that.

    Let me ask you a simple question. Can Israel send its war planes over Finland and shoot missiles if some Finnish citizens have put weapons in a container for Hizbollah (or the other numerous armed militias in Lebanon)? With your “Solomon” interpretation you can.

    Do I need make other arguments? I suppose not.

    PS. Oil price hit today over 80 USD. What will it be after further Israeli “Solomon” interpretations of UNSC resolutions?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 12th, 2007, 8:00 pm

     

    54. Danny said:

    Er, yes I must read more carefully. Stupid me, when you said “it’s not surprising that the NY Times is taking the lead in pressing Bush administration propaganda”, I thought you were talking about the NY times when OBVIOUSLY you were talking about a totally unrelated Israeli newspaper – then why were you shocked, shocked, I tell you, to discover “the authors of that article are all Israels” at an Israeli newspaper? Could it be that you didn’t bother reading the original NYT report and that this is simply some BS you picked up on google? Surely not.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 12th, 2007, 8:07 pm

     

    55. eric said:

    …. and if you all are wrong ?

    remember the nice speed contest beween the hare and the porky-pic, which the porky pic always won to the surprise of the hare. The tric: at the one end of the track papa porky pic was starting the race with the hare and at the end of the track mama porky pic was waiting for the hare……….papa porky pic resting on the way

    if in the case, american figthers from iraq simulate an entry into Syria at the eastern side and israely figthers do the same from the western side ?

    Who knows with certainty that any of this planes overflew Syria

    how well can you distinguish between american and israeli figthers?

    not much better than betwenn mama and papa porky pic

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 12th, 2007, 10:10 pm

     

    56. Akbar Palace said:

    Solomon2 –

    Welcome to the Syrian “Peace” forum!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 12th, 2007, 10:19 pm

     

    57. abraham said:

    Dan,

    WTF are you talking about? Your reading comprehension is apparently extraordinarily poor. The original article, as published by the zionist authors, had the headline I quoted, which was subsequently changed. According to them, the NY Times was pushing the meme that IAf photographed nuclear facilities in Syria, whereby the actual content of the article clarified the headline as being “possibly” nuclear facilities.

    It is also possible the zionist authors simply pulled the headline out of their collective asses, which for zionist journalists would not surprise me one bit.

    Don’t let me stop you from contributing something useful to this discussion.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 13th, 2007, 12:12 am

     

    58. Danny said:

    Dear Abraham, I’ll take your rant as a “Yes, I didn’t bother reading the original NYT article and now I feel a bit silly jumping up and down”.

    Dear anyone ELSE, do we have any hard evidence that there was any incursion at all? How do the Syrians know it was the Israelis if they failed to hit anything? How do they know the IAF flight path if they didn’t detect the IAF until is had reached deep into Syria?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 13th, 2007, 5:25 am

     

    59. SimoHurtta said:

    Dear anyone ELSE, do we have any hard evidence that there was any incursion at all? How do the Syrians know it was the Israelis if they failed to hit anything? How do they know the IAF flight path if they didn’t detect the IAF until is had reached deep into Syria?

    Come-on Danny, even USA has admitted that the incursion by Israelis happened. If it did not happen why doesn’t Israel say that it had nothing to do with that incursion?

    By the way how do you know that Syria did not detect the planes earlier? Maybe Syrians wanted to know where Israeli planes are going and decided to take action before the planes reached Iraq or the mysterious target.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 13th, 2007, 7:11 am

     

    60. Friend in America said:

    Question: In working on this murkey picture I found some third hand information that several years ago the Chinese sold the Syrians a “miniture” reactor and it is located at Dayr az Zawr. Does anyone have information of this question? If the reactor is not at Dayr, where is it?

    Reactors need a lot of water for steam and for cooling. For this reason the usually are found near rivers. Dayr az Zawr is on the Euphrates River. An analyist in Great Britain said the target could not be nuclear because Syria’s principal military installations are in the central desert. That analyst apparently is not aware a reactor needs water.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 14th, 2007, 1:22 am

     

    61. Friend in America said:

    In the 12 plus hours since the above comment correspondent reports in Washington, Rome, Cairo and Tokyo have been published focusing on a Syrian-North Korean link. They find it noteable that North Korea and Iran are the only countries that publically condemned the incursion. Although more verification is needed before there is certainty that the site bombed contained nuclear components, give thought to the possibility they were nuclear and that they were paid for by Iran under the recently signed “trade agreement.” But, why would Syria be involved in such high risk activity at this time?
    The weak Syrian economy could not bear the very expensive cost of a nuclear program so international economists claim. We should note Syria asked only that the report to the UN Security Council on Israel’s incursion be circulated – it did not ask for a Security Council hearing. Circulation is only eye dressing for domestic satisfaction. Also, Syria has not allowed the press to visit the site at last to date.
    We should be sensitive to several possibilities:
    1. If the nuclear materials were for Syria’s use, Israel will defend itself on a claim of self defense, as it did previously.
    If not for Syria’s almost dormant nuclear program, was Syria merely a deliverer?
    2. Intellegence reports increased activity in Dawr for the past 6 weeks. What was going on and by whom?
    3. If intended for Hezbollah, the provision in the UN Security Council resolution on banning weapons for Hezbollah gives Israel an out from international criticism .
    3. If the materials were intended for Iran to further its program and was Syrian to trans ship them to Iran?
    (imagine an international debate in which Syria denies the materials were for its own nuclear program and then asked for whose program was Syria to trans ship?) In any event, Damascus will have some difficult explaning why nuclear components were secretly shipped into Syria. Maybe for Damascus’s sake, the less said the better.
    The foregoing is only an assessment hypothesis. Future disclosures will determine its accuracy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 14th, 2007, 8:18 pm

     

    62. SimoHurtta said:

    Friend in America do you believe the stories and findings. So far the only “evidence” of Syrian nuclear plans have come from some US guys, known in the past having an extreme vivid imagination, giving extremely foggy interviews. In style “May be” like Bolton said.

    Why on earth would North Korea transfer nuclear technology to Syria, which doesn’t have the needed basic industrial infrastructure, enough educated personnel and no money? Iran would be much a much more logical transfer target, because they have the needed industrial infrastructure, trained experienced personnel and money.

    Actually it is amusing how the western media works. First there is an attack. Then everybody assumes that there must be a real important target but nobody knows what. Then some “experienced” US Iraqi WMD hunters put around a rumour that North Koreans are building there a nuclear weapon factory. And puff that is becomes the official truth in the media (like it happened with Iraq).

    Nobody bothers to use their brains. How did North Koreans to manage to ship all the enormous amounts of machines, parts etc needed to build a nuclear reactor or nuclear weapon factory in Syria? In suitcases by a few alleged North Korean atom experts visiting Damascus – come-on. If it has taken for Iran decades to build a nuclear program, how could Syria manage in secret to build in a couple months / years to build a seriously taken nuclear weapon factory near Iraqi border under the US noses. USA can even calculate “exactly” 🙂 the amount of incoming foreign fighters. How could Syria hide a huge industrial complex been built near the border?

    What about adding three points to your list for possible motives

    4 the nuclear material was Saddam’s lost “WMD treasures” which Israel suddenly found 🙂
    5. Israel attacked to demolish the Arab peace plan, which had been extremely costly for Israel and caused severe internal problems and even the possibility to some level civil war.
    6. Israel attacked to make “ground” for a new war.

    Points 5 and 6 seem much more logical reasons than the wild speculations with North Korea. If Israel/US would have proof and the site is destroyed, why not tell the world in a more believable way than feeding second grade rumours (= some North Korean atom experts visited Syria) to the press. Now it is on the same level like the stories of the Saddam’s Al Qaida links.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 14th, 2007, 9:35 pm

     

    63. Friend in America said:

    The web site named nti.org has a map of all of Syria’s WMD activites. Dayr az Zawr is identified as a nuclear activity site.

    The commentary on this site states Syria’s activities (to date of the commentary) has been limited to producing isotobes for medical purposes and other limited non WMD uses. There is no comment on the heightened activities at Dayr az Zawr in the past 6 weeks and it offers nothing on why Israel decided this site was too dangerous to Israel’s security. So the commentary may not be current.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 14th, 2007, 9:50 pm

     

    64. Friend in America said:

    Correction: The site is nti (Nuclear Threat Initiative), a private non-profit organization organized by a former Democrat Senator and Ted Turner of Atlanta, GA, USA. It’s a good site worth reviewing.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 14th, 2007, 9:58 pm

     

    65. ausamaa said:

    Does this trust worthy site make any mention of Iraq’s WMD? Past or present? LOL/

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 14th, 2007, 11:05 pm

     

    66. SimoHurtta said:

    Well I do not know how neutral NTI.ORG is

    Introductions from nti
    Israel:

    Forged by the experience of the Holocaust, and its geography defined within a hostile neighborhood, the modern state of Israel has developed a range of weapons systems to ensure its security. Based on the real or perceived threat from its Arab and Persian neighbors, Israel continues to maintain a highly advanced military, a nuclear weapons program, and offensive and defensive missiles. There are unconfirmed allegations that Israel has sought chemical and biological weapons as well.

    Syria:

    While constrained by limited resources, Syria has shown interest in and taken steps to develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems, especially chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. Damascus has allegedly received direct assistance from Russia (and formerly the Soviet Union), Iran, and North Korea in developing its programs. Syria’s motivation to acquire WMD, and ballistic missiles in particular, appears to be a response to Israel’s superior conventional military capabilities. There are strong indications that Syria is pursuing nuclear weapons.

    Interesting. Syria has shown interest in developing Weapons of Mass Destruction. But Israel is because of Holocaust (which by the way happened in Europe) is building only defensive weapons. Strong indications with Syria and unconfirmed allegations with Israel. Same WMD’s are with Syria weapons of mass destruction and with Israel they are only weapons. Strange isn’t it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 14th, 2007, 11:28 pm

     

    67. Friend in America said:

    Itr’s easy to post character smears. Far harder to post comments that advance ones understanding.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 15th, 2007, 1:53 am

     

    68. Friend in America said:

    Simohurtta –
    The interesting question is – why would Syria buy nuclear components from North Korea when it has so little money and such fragmentary nuclear facilities and risk an international crisis? What’s in it for Syria? Why North Korea would sell is easy – they want the money. A sale would recover some of its very expensive investment in nuclear weapons, which it is shutting down. North Korea is very poor. Some foreign currency would be very attractive (or did they sell for oil from Iran?).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 15th, 2007, 2:02 am

     

    69. SimoHurtta said:

    Simohurtta –
    The interesting question is – why would Syria buy nuclear components from North Korea when it has so little money and such fragmentary nuclear facilities and risk an international crisis? What’s in it for Syria? Why North Korea would sell is easy – they want the money. A sale would recover some of its very expensive investment in nuclear weapons, which it is shutting down. North Korea is very poor. Some foreign currency would be very attractive (or did they sell for oil from Iran?).

    Indeed the interesting question is – why would Syria. Don’t you Friend in America know that there is an UN resolution for North Korea transferring nuclear “knowhow”. That makes extremely difficult for North Korea to ship the the goods to the customer when US warships keep close look of outgoing goods. Do you really believe that the transfers of such facilities and the hundreds of foreign experts needed in building the new “systems” could be performed in total “darkness”.

    Of course North Korea wants money but so do others including USA and Israel. For North Korea to be “found” in this kind of illegal technology transfers would severely hurt its ability to earn in future much more cash than it ever could get from Syria. So your need cash motive is an extremely weak motive. Could I say that it is obvious that you sell heroin because you need money and the need of cash is proof enough? I doubt that.

    Use Friend in America your brains and first figure out how could NK manage to get the goods to Syria and then use a while for thinking how it would be possible for Syria to build in total secret an enormous industrial project. “May have” Bolton is not a creditable source.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    September 15th, 2007, 5:48 am

     

    Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

    Post a comment