File photo shows foreign-backed militants in Syria.
What does Israel hope to gain by its accelerating attacks on Syria?
Officially, Israeli leaders claim that they are trying to prevent weapons transfers to Hezbollah. But this seems a flimsy pretext. Hezbollah already has a well-stocked arsenal of missiles, enough to deter Israel from repeating its failed 2006 invasion of Lebanon.
Obviously, Israel has a broader strategic objective. By bombing Syrian government targets, Israel is trying to hinder the Syrians, who are winning their war against foreign-backed militants. The Zionists hope to prolong the war in Syria, maximize death and destruction, turn Syria into a failed state, and spread sectarian chaos throughout the Middle East.
This is the hidden agenda behind Benjamin Netanyahu's explanation for his attack on Syria. Rationalizing his decision to bomb Syria, Netanyahu said his father "taught me that the greatest responsibility we have is to ensure Israel's security and guarantee its future."
By invoking Israel's long-term future, Netanyahu tacitly admitted that his war of aggression against Syria is not just an effort to prevent a few more missiles from entering Hezbollah's already-massive arsenal. In reality, the Israeli war on Syria is part of the Oded Yinon plan, which aims to smash Middle Eastern countries into a fractious morass of balkanized ethnic and sectarian enclaves. By preventing the Assad government from winning its war and forcing the militants to the bargaining table, which would ensure a gradual, peaceful, and stable transfer of power in Syria, Netanyahu hopes to turn Syria into a permanent failed state driven by endless civil war.
If Syria becomes a failed state, Israel would benefit in two ways. First, Israel would no longer have to worry about giving back the Golan Heights and its water, which Israel has been plundering ever since it stole that region in its 1967 war of aggression.
The second and most important reason Israel wants to balkanize and destroy Syria is that Syria's sectarian strife could catalyze Sunni-Shia conflict, and related ethnic conflicts, throughout the Middle East. If Syria becomes a permanently festering sore, the infection will spread to the entire region. This would keep the Middle East weak and divided, allowing the parasitical foreign settler-colonial entity to continue to thrive by pillaging its neighbors - and the American taxpayer.
In other words, a weak, sick, chaotic Middle East is good for Israel. A healthy, thriving, united Middle East is Israel's worst nightmare.
So Israel's strategy is to incite wars and do everything possible to keep them going. If one side appears to be gaining the upper hand, which could lead the other side to accept a peaceful resolution, Israel will intervene in favor of the side that is losing, in order to prevent peace from breaking out.
Zionist ultra-extremist Daniel Pipes recently articulated that strategy:
“Evil forces pose less danger to us when they make war on each other. This (1) keeps them focused locally and it (2) prevents either one from emerging victorious (and thereby posing a yet-greater danger). Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong their conflict.”
The Zionist-imperialist axis has followed this strategy before, at an atrocious cost in lives and human suffering. In 1980, the Zionist-led West armed Saddam Hussein and incited him to invade Iran. But by 1982, when a surprisingly effective Iranian counter-offensive was about to culminate in an Iranian victory, the West stepped in decisively and lavished overwhelming support on Saddam. The effect was to prolong the conflict for another, horrible six years. During that period, the Western policy, following the Zionist strategy, was to do everything possible to prolong the war and maximize casualties. To that end, the West provided Saddam Hussein with copious quantities of chemical weapons to use against Iranian civilians as well as on the battlefield.
Today, Israel's “divide and conquer” strategy is shifting. In the past, the Zionists did everything they could to stir up trouble, and maximize violence, between secularists and Islamists. Now that Islamic politics is dominant in the region, the Zionists are trying to morph the secularist-Islamist clash into a Sunni-Shia intra-Muslim civil war. And Syria is the perfect place to do this, with it’s relatively secularist government in which non-Sunni religious minorities are overrepresented. That government faces opposition, both moderate and extremist, from elements of the Sunni population - and from foreign terrorists who have joined with local extremists.
In this Zionist attempt to incite civil war inside the House of Islam, the tip of the spear is the Takfiris, an extremist movement among the Wahhabi-Salafi school of non-traditional Sunni Islam. The Takfiris reject Islamic tradition, which holds that all Muslims who bear witness to the Divine Unicity and the prophethood of Muhammad, peace upon him, are within the house of Islam. The Takfiris believe that they are the only real Muslims; others are heretics and deserve to be killed.
The Takfiri movement is Zionism's perfect tool. Wherever there is Muslim unity, a viable state, or a successful society, just send in the Takfiris to stir up sectarian hatred.
Better yet, from the Zionist perspective: The Takfiris make Islam look bad. These fanatics, who seem to love chopping off the heads of people they disagree with, are walking, talking advertisements for Zionist Islamophobia.
Is it just a coincidence that so-called al-Qaeda, which is more a Takfiri ideology than an actual organization, kills large numbers of Muslims - but never, ever attacks Israel?
Or is “al-Qaeda” just a bit player in the Oded Yinon strategy for inciting and prolonging war, and turning the Middle East into a failed region of failed states?