Propaganda in the Service of Genocide and Mass Destruction
Kirillov Assassination
I note that there has been a Russian arrest of a suspect (or suspects) in the Kirillov assassination, whom the Russians say was paid by SBU intelligence to carry out the crime. I agree with Col. Douglas Macgregor’s assessment in conversation with Judge Napolitano earlier today (December 18) that the most likely explanation for the choice of Kirillov as target is the one that Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has provided (I use Gilbert Doctorow’s summary of her statement below).
It seems that Kirillov would have known quite a lot, and not just about Western chemical and biological weapons facilities:
“In her Briefing to journalists earlier today, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova explained why General Kirillov would have been targeted by “the Anglo-Saxons” for his many years spent exposing their egregious violations of international law by (the U.S.) operating biological laboratories in Ukraine and elsewhere that targeted specific ethnic groups including Slavs, for his exposing the false flag operations of the white helmets and other British agents in Syria who staged phony chemical attacks to lay at the door of the Assad regime and its Russian backers, for his exposing the falsehoods of the alleged Russian use of Novichok against the Skripals in Salisbury, U.K., and for exposing the use of chemical agents by Ukrainians on the battlefield in the ongoing war with Russia. She identified the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ as the ‘main beneficiaries of the Kiev regime’s terrorist activities.’ More importantly, she called the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ ‘the ones who masterminded all their activities.’"
The Path to Peace
European proposals, spearheaded by war-crazed Macron with the waning support of Polish neocon fanatic Donald Tusk and fading support from a politically turbulent Germany, for some kind of NATO peace-keeping force in Ukraine, have met with such a barrage of criticism from multiple quarters that they seem to be a non-starter.
The idea cannot possibly be acceptable to Russia, given that such a force would be tantamount to a NATO presence in Ukraine or, in other words, the very opposite to Russia’s single most important condition for peace talks which is, of course, Ukrainian neutrality. Ukraine cannot both be neutral with respect to NATO and, at the same time, host a NATO peace-keeping force that would inevitably shuffle in more men and weapons into Ukraine for later aggressions.
Cai-Göran Alexander Stubb, the President of Finland, now a member of NATO, has argued, in effect, that the idea is utter nonsense: the numbers so far talked about (e.g. 40,000 troops) are far less than the basic 150,000 that would be required to man Ukraine’s borders with Russia and Belarus, and even a force of 150,000 would need to be serviced by a larger force of 300,000 to keep it viable. One might even cycnically conclude from Stubb’s dismissive comments that if Russia truly wanted to drain the West of its remaining weapons and security stockpiles in a continuing war of attrition against the West, it would encourage just such a force.
Western Disdain for and Suppression of Counter Narratives
Through an FOIA lawsuit, the National Security Archive has achieved the release of a long withheld assessment by a top analyst at the US Embassy in Moscow in March 1994 that critiqued the “conqueror” mentality of US elites who liked to imagine that the fall of the Soviet Union was something they had devised, that entitled them to rubbish Russia, and that this posture was politically sensible.
Wrong on all accounts. The primary reason for the fall of the Soviet Union was an internal struggle between reformists who worried that a schlerotic bureaucracy would stifle Soviet capacity for modernization, and conservatives. The West had won nothing and had no reason to crow. The West’s “conqueror complex” after 1991 made it possible for the successors to the US negotiators of the 1988-1990 talks between, first President Reagan and later, George Bush senior, and the last Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachev, to discard or ignore treaties and understandings that were of existential importance to the possibility of peaceful relations between the US and the future Russian Federation. These included the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty and the commitment of NATO not to move further east after the reunification of East and West Germany.
A top political officer warned his superiors in 1994 that the US priority on markets over democratic institution-building would turn Russia anti-American and “adversarial.” The NSA summarizes the importance of the cable:
“A now-legendary but long-secret 70-paragraph telegram written by the top political analyst at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in March 1994, E. Wayne Merry, criticizing the American policy focus on radical economic reform in Russia, was published in full today for the first time by the National Security Archive.
Merry could not get the critical message cleared for government-wide distribution at the time in 1994 because of Treasury objections (“It would give Larry Summers a heart attack”) and ultimately resorted to the Dissent Channel instead, according to Merry’s retrospective commentary, which was also published today by the Archive together with the actual “long telegram” and other declassified documents.
Reminiscent of George Kennan’s Long Telegram of 1946 in the depth and scope of its analysis of Russian realities and almost as prescient in its prophecies, the Merry cable only reached the public domain as the result of a National Security Archive lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The State Department denied a copy to Merry himself, claiming public release of dissent messages would provide the wrong incentive for future Foreign Service Officers.
Titled provocatively “Whose Russia Is It Anyway? Toward a Policy of Benign Respect,” the Merry long telegram argued that radical market reform was the wrong economic prescription for Russia, with its history of statist direction of the economy, uncertainty of political transition and extreme challenges of geography and climate. The message described “shock therapy” as so visibly Washington’s program that the devastating austerity already evident in 1994 was blamed on the U.S., and the long-term consequences would “recreate an adversarial relationship between Russia and the West.” Plus, Merry warned, “we will also fail on the economic front.”
A British ambassador has later recalled how other senior voices after that time issued similar warnings. This, from Sir Tony Brenton, UK ambassador to Moscow 2004-2008:
“For three decades those who know Russia best have warned against Nato expansion, and in particular the inclusion of Ukraine, as the surest way of infuriating the Russian Bear. Back in 1990 a string of top western leaders went to the trouble of reassuring the then USSR (falsely as it turned out) that Nato would not expand “one inch” beyond the incorporation of East Germany. Bill Clinton carefully constructed, but then abandoned, a “Partnership for Peace” explicitly as a way of postponing expansion. George Kennan, that most astute of Russia observers, described Nato expansion as “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era”. After the Maidan revolution of 2014 and the start of the Donbas war Henry Kissinger wrote that the only solution was Ukrainian neutrality. Bill Burns, US ambassador in Moscow in 2008, advised Washington that Ukrainian inclusion in Nato was “the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite”. We ignored all these warnings and pressed ahead. Rachman is of course right that the hand that pulls the trigger bears the guilt. But we signally helped create the conditions for the crime.”
Western Propaganda Machine
RT has presented a creditable effort to document the extent to which the current war has been fed by a veritable army of PR agencies, funded by Western governments, and ostensibly working for the Ukraine Ministry of Information, in a largely successfu campaign to mold, manipulate and lie about Ukraine and Russia (RT).
Rebranding Terrorists
Alan MacLeod has done consistently important work in helping dissect the inner workings of the Western propaganda machines. First, for Consortium News, and in relation to the sudden Western rebranding of head-chopping head of a terrorist organization, the HTS, into a moderate, reasonable diplomat in Syria, he writes:
“Thus, while many casual observers may be shocked to see the media and political class embrace the leader of al-Qaeda in Syria as a modern, progressive champion, the reality is that the U.S. relationship with the group is merely reverting to a position it has previously held. Consequently, it appears that the War on Terror will come to an end with the “terrorists” being redesignated as “moderate rebels” and “freedom fighters.”
“Of course, many have argued that the U.S. Terrorist List is entirely arbitrary to begin with and is merely a barometer of who is in Washington’s good books at any given time. In 2020, the Trump administration removed Sudan from its state sponsors of terror list in exchange for the country normalizing relations with Israel, proving how transactional the list was.
“A few months later, it removed the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (a Uyghur militia currently active in Syria) from its list because of its hardening attitude towards China, seeing ETIM as a useful pawn to play against Beijing.
“Washington also continues to keep Cuba on its terror list despite there being no evidence of the island supporting terror groups.
“And the U.S. refused to remove Nelson Mandela from its list of the world’s most notorious terrorists until 2008 — 14 years after he became President of South Africa. In comparison, Jolani’s redesignation might take fewer than 14 days.
Molding Child Consciousness
In a different context, for Mint Press News, MacLeod writes of Congressional resuscitation of Cold War propaganda techniques including blanket attempts to mold public consciousness from an early age.
He is referring to the “Crucial Communism Teaching Act,” that is designed to teach children that “certain political ideologies, including communism and totalitarianism…conflict with the principles of freedom and democracy that are essential to the founding of the United States.”
“The curriculum will be designed by the controversial Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and will ensure all American high school students “understand the dangers of communism and similar political ideologies” and “learn that communism has led to the deaths of over 100,000,000 victims worldwide.” It will also develop a series titled “Portraits in Patriotism,” that will expose students to individuals who are “victims of the political ideologies” in question.
MacLeod exposes the 100 million figure as a piece of fiction that originated with “The Black Book of Communism,” a collection of political essays, whose central claim that 100 million people perished as a result of communist ideology is doubted even by many of the book’s contributors and co-writers. MacLeod recalls that the book was condemned by Holocaust remembrance groups as “whitewashing and even lionizing genocidal fascist groups as anti-communist heroes”.
One of the central goals of the bill is also to “ensure that high school students in the United States understand that 1,500,000,000 people still suffer under communism” - that is to say, live in China, with whom both the outgoing Biden administration and the incoming Trump administation are salivating for war in the name of US global hegemony.
The proposed new school curriculum will focus on highly dubious, CIA-sponsored claims of ongoing human rights abuses concerning treatment of Uyghurs in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and of “pro-democracy” color revolution movements in Hong Kong and Taiwan (both of which are integrally Chinese). The bill will also likely target socialist or communist-led governments in Latin America.
MacLeod worries that Washington is slowly moving towards a new McCarthyist era. He refers to statements by President Trump, promising, for example, to carry out mass deportations of leftists (i.e. critics of extreme capitalist ideology) once he becomes president.
Defending Israeli Genocide
Media Lens reports a staggering nonchalence from British mainstream media in the face of Amnesty International’s recent report documenting and verifying Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people:
“When they covered the report at all, ‘mainstream’ news reports gave ample room to Israel’s crazed denunciations of Amnesty as a ‘deplorable and fanatical organisation’ that had issued a report that was ‘entirely false and based on lies’.
“The Daily Telegraph exhibited classic propaganda bias. Rather than focus on Amnesty’s evidence and conclusion that Israel ‘has committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians’, the paper led with Israel’s absurd dismissal of the report. Amnesty’s key conclusions about genocide were sketched briefly and relegated towards the end of the piece.
“A Nexis database search of UK-wide newspapers reveals that the Daily Mirror also carried the story (under 500 words) on page 8 or 10, depending on the edition. There was also an article by the Guardian (which only seems to have been published online and not in the print edition) and the Independent, which felt compelled to add the phrase ‘an accusation Israel rejects’ in its headline: ‘Amnesty International says genocide is occurring in Gaza, an accusation Israel rejects’. It was also covered by The National and The Herald in Scotland. However, the Daily Mail, The Sun, The Times and the Express all appear to have blanked the story.
“The BBC, like other major news organisations, undoubtedly had an advance embargoed copy of Amnesty’s report giving them time to prepare their news coverage. And yet, it took fully 12 hours for the BBC to publish an article on its website. Within a mere 24 hours, the story had entirely disappeared from its front page.
“Richard Sanders, an experienced filmmaker and journalist, noted that the day after Amnesty’s report came out, the story was not even one of the seven leading headlines on the BBC’s ‘Israel-Gaza war’ page. Instead, readers had to scroll down the page to ‘Latest News’ where, he observed, ‘it nestles among a bunch of reports about Israeli hostages.’
“Even on the very day of the Amnesty report, BBC News bent over backwards to incorporate the Israeli perspective, typified by a short segment on the BBC News Channel at 12.19pm which went as follows:
BBC presenter introduction: around 30 seconds.
BBC Middle East correspondent Yolande Knell’s summary of the Amnesty report: around 45 seconds.
Israel’s response attacking Amnesty as a ‘deplorable and fanatical organisation’: around 25 seconds.
Knell pointing out that Israel had made similar comments about the ongoing genocide case brought before the International Court of Justice by South Africa. She then mentioned the origins of the 1948 Genocide Convention in the mass murder of Jews during the Nazi Holocaust: around 40 seconds.
All this was then followed by testimony from the mother of a British hostage being held by Hamas in Gaza: around 1 minute, 30 seconds; by far the longest section.
“To spell it out, BBC News devoted more time here to the narrative of the genocide perpetrator, Israel, than it did to the copious evidence and damning conclusions of Amnesty. This is BBC ‘balance’ and ‘impartiality’: a brazen attempt to protect Israel’s reputation from the truth during an ongoing genocide.
“On the day of the Amnesty report, it did not make the headlines on BBC News at One, BBC News at Six or BBC News at Ten. The BBC News website gave a US murder story headline ‘LIVE’ coverage, while Amnesty accusing Israel of genocide was granted a small mention.
“As we have previously noted, BBC News ‘impartiality’ has been increasingly exposed as a charade since 7 October last year. When journalists do ‘both sides’ reporting in the face of genocide, they have lost the right to call themselves ‘journalists’. Accusations of BBC complicity in genocide should be a very serious concern for senior BBC managers and editors.
“Meanwhile, apologists for Israel’s genocide jumped on the false notion that Amnesty had somehow redefined the term ‘genocide’ by broadening its meaning in order to accuse Israel.
“An early proponent of this Israeli talking point was Mark Goldfeder, the director of the US-based National Jewish Advocacy Center. In a post on X, he wrote:
‘@amnesty international literally redefined the legal term of genocide to suit their accusation, stripping the term of its actual meaning in the process. The craziest part? They admit this in their report, correctly assuming that most people won’t read all the way to p. 101:’
“In the thread that followed, Goldfeder claimed that Amnesty committed ‘a willful misrepresentation of international law’. How did it do this? By supposedly lowering the bar from the International Court of Justice standard for declaring genocide.
“But, as others have pointed out, this is emphatically not what Amnesty did. Alonso Gurmendi, a fellow in human rights and politics at the London School of Economics and editor of Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, noted via X:
‘Mark [Goldfeder] is trying to make it look like @Amnesty just rejected the ICJ’s standard and made one up that suited it more. But this is not what it did. How do I know? Well, I did not strategically cut out the part of the report that explains it. [our emphasis]’
“He continued:
‘As Amnesty states, it simply is reading the ICJ’s standard *broadly* because reading it narrowly leads to no findings of genocide ever. This is exactly what the UK, Canada, Netherlands, Denmark and Germany said as recently as Nov 2023 *at the ICJ*’
“Gurmendi added:
‘My twitter feed is now basically some of the most renowned scholars of international law in the world tweeting how Amnesty’s report is “not really innovative” regarding the definition of genocide and pro-Israel blue checks complaining that Amnesty “redefined genocide”…’
“In other words, the Zionist charge that the ‘legal term of genocide’ was ‘redefined’ by Amnesty, repeated ad nauseum by Israel supporters across X and other social media, is false and a desperate attempt to evade the truth”.
US-China Tariff Wars
Tariffs
An Economist report by By Mike Bird, Asia business and finance editor, warns that the trade war is spreading geographically. In the case of China, tariffs might rise as high as 60% (far higher than the 10%-20% that Trump is talking about for other countries).
Chinese exports to America amounted to around $500bn in 2023. That could drop by as much as 85% if the tariffs are implemented in full.
In response, Bird predicts that China’s policymakers are likely to engineer a fall in the yuan to blunt the impact on its manufacturers by driving down the cost of Chinese goods all over the rest of the world.
Efforts by the Chinese government to stimulate domestic demand in a climate of what, by the high standards of the Chinese, represents a period of slow economic growth, have fallen short of expectations, boosting the role of exports as a driver of economic growth. In one important dimension of industrial activity, given its hoped-for positive impact for climate change, China has emerged as the world’s largest car exporter, thanks in large part to its expertise in producing low-cost EVs. and this is perceived as a threat in the Western world and in parts of the Global South.
“A proposal by America’s Department of Commerce to prohibit the use of Chinese software in cars would in effect ban Chinese cars from American roads. In August the Canadian government imposed 100% tariffs on Chinese-made evs. In Europe, the issue is still a matter of political discord. A proposal by the European Commission for tariffs of up to 45% on Chinese evs faced opposition from the governments of Germany and Hungary, though those of France, Italy and Poland supported the new levies. Germany’s car industry opposed the move, given the risk of retaliation from China, the industry’s largest foreign market
“Brazil, Chile and Mexico raised tariffs on Chinese steel imports in April. Countries in South-East Asia are also being dragged into the fray. In July, Indonesia’s trade minister threatened tariffs of up to 200% in areas including ceramics, textiles and footwear. Malaysia’s government is reviewing its anti-dumping duties against Chinese steel”.
A Fuller Trump Tariff Chronology
Michael Klare has written an account for Tom Dispatch in which he recalls how in January 2018, the first Trump administration imposed tariffs of 30% on imported solar panels and 20%-50% on imported washing machines, many sourced from China.
“Two months later, the administration added tariffs on imported steel (25%) and aluminum (10%), again aimed above all at China. And despite his many criticisms of Trump’s foreign and economic policies, President Biden chose to retain those tariffs, even adding new ones, notably on electric cars and other high-tech products. The Biden administration has also banned the export of advanced computer chips and chip-making technology to China in a bid to slow that country’s technological progress.
Trump II has said that, on day one of his new term he will raise tariffs on Chinese imports to 60%, revoke China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations (also known as “most favored nation”) status, and ban the transshipment of Chinese imports through third countries. Opponents to this approach say that China can retaliate with tariffs on American imports and restrictions on American firms doing business in China, including Elon Musk’s Tesla, which produces half of its cars there. If, on the issues of Taiwan and of tariffs, Trump goes the “full Monty,” then:
“He could precipitate nothing short of a global economic meltdown that would negatively affect the lives of so many of his supporters, while significantly diminishing America’s own geopolitical clout… A decision to play hardball with China on the economic front could also increase the risk of a military confrontation leading to full-scale war, even to World War III.”
Implications for the BRICS
This is an issue that is likely at some point in the near future to also complicate diplomatic relations between countries of the Global South in the context of the rise of the BRICS.
A recent article by Andrew Korybko in Popular Resistance follows a similar logic in the case of India which concludes that “few countries can afford to be massively tariffed by the US, let alone sanctioned, and most aren’t willing to burn their bridges with the US for ideological reasons at the expense of their immediate economic interests.’
He cites Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar:
“India has never been for de-dollarization. Right now there is no proposal to have a BRICS currency. BRICS do discuss financial transactions, [but] the United States is our largest trade partner and we have no interest in weakening the dollar at all.”
India ‘s economic growth, says Korykbo, requires continued flows of American investment and the maintenance of Indian access to the US market. It may want to internationalize the rupee, but that is not the same thing as de-dollarization. To take the step of de-dollarization may represent a liberation from US hegemony, yes, but only at the expense of being entrapped into a Chinese “petroyuan” hegemony.
The goal must be to diversify currencies and platforms, not replace one dependency with another, and this will take time implement. The reason for Russia’s internationalization of the ruble Korybko claims, was because the US prohibited the use of dollars by others when purchasing Russian energy products. This could be reversed to a large degree should US relations with Russia improve. A Russian hold-out would not necessary be adopted by China:
“As “politically incorrect” as it may sound, China already complies with some of these same Western sanctions against Russia despite still officially criticizing them as hegemonic. This is proven by the Chinese-based BRICS New Development Bank and the SCO Bank suspending projects in Russia and not allowing the transfer of Russia’s dues respectively as proven here and here. RT also drew attention to Russia’s payment problems with China in early September, which were analyzed at length here….The fact of the matter is that China’s complex interdependencies with the West are too deep, and this places major limits on its financial policymaking capabilities, thus explaining why it hasn’t fully supported Russia. This observation could lead to self-imposed restraints among aspiring de-dollarizing states”.
Syria and Lebanon
Russian Bases
The position of Russia’s bases in Syria has been complicated by insistence yesterday from the European Union, as expressed in a meeting between Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, with the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in which von der Leyen told Erdogan that the EU would maintain its sanctions on Syria until the removal of Russia’s bases (amongst other conditions).
President Putin of Russia has said that Russia has yet to decide whether it wishes to retain the bases. Most commentators appear to agree that it would be relatively easy for Russia to find equivalent bases in others parts of the Mediterranean. The London Times today is not the first to suggest that one such possibility would be a Libyan port under the control of the Haftar faction of Libya’s multi-faceted, not to say ingloriously fragmented governance. This was the direct result of an illegal Neocon-induced NATO bombing operation against Libya in 2011, which destroyed one of Africa’s most prosperous economies and removed one of its principal opponents to Al Qaeda and other forms of extreme Sunni jihadism.
But removal of Russia from Syria further weakens Iran. There have been conflicting statements recently as to whether Russia’s long-mooted security agreement with Iran has been signed. I believe that the formal signing signature is now expected four days after Trump’s inauguration. If signed or, very likely, even if not signed, I don’t believe that Russia can afford to sit back to see Israel, with US backing, launch a full-scale war against Iran. A continuing Russian presence in Syria is an aid to Russian air defense (although, admittedly, I doubt if Israeli jets or missiles would pass over Latakia or anywhere near it, but Russian warships in Tartus might be able to fire suitable missiles to intercept from a greater distance) and other forms of assistance to Iran in the event of an Israeli strike. It would also constitute a positive element in any peace talks that might be initiated in any effort to head off such a strike.
It has been reported that Turkey is keen to see the Russians stay in Latakia. Since HTS is basically a Turkish puppet, HTS would presumably go along with this. Russia might not wish to put itself at the mercy of Turkey on the issue of the bases but, on the other hand, might want to retain them for as long as there is an immiment possibility of an Israeli-instigated war with Iran.
Hezbollah
For Fanack, Ali Nourredine writes that the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah is very tenuous. Within the first week, Israeli forces were reported to have committed more than 60 violations of the ceasefire. These suggest a broader strategy by Israel to normalize such infractions as part of an effort to disarm Hezbollah gradually. The publicly announced terms of the agreement outlined the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701. This calls for the deployment of the Lebanese army and international peacekeeping forces south of the Litani River, an area bordering Israel’s northern frontier. Resolution 1701 also mandates that Hezbollah withdraw its military arsenal north of the river, in exchange for Israel refraining from launching any attacks across Lebanese territory.
So far, so good, BUT:
“Israel secured a separate American guarantee, containing secret clauses beyond the public agreement with Lebanon. This guarantee – later leaked to the media – acknowledged Israel’s right to take action within Lebanon at any time to address perceived future threats. The document also pledged that the United States would share intelligence with Israel, including satellite imagery, to assist in dismantling Hezbollah’s weapon supply networks..
“The United States not only chairs the committee tasked with overseeing the ceasefire agreement but also has extensive authority to coordinate with both the Lebanese army and peacekeeping forces, as well as to gather intelligence from them to ensure compliance”.
Noureddine believes that the US will lincrease its presence in southern Lebanon, deploying personnel specializing in security and intelligence coordination, as well as information gathering, all at the service of Israel. Hezbollah likely felt compelled to accept the “poisoned cup” in order to end the harsh Israeli assault on Lebanon and later focus on rebuilding its strength. It will want to strengthen its relationship with the Lebanese Army while retaliating for Israeli aggressions by targeting military sites in northern Israel, establishing a deterrent equation to prevent the normalization of repeated breaches of Lebanese sovereignty, and restoring its leadership structure following the series of assassinations that targeted its top political and military leaders.
Hezbollah’s ability to support its allies in Damascus against the opposition was crippled ahead of the Turkish-sanctioned HTS/SNA invasion of Syria.
“The Syrian army has stood down, and Hezbollah has withdrawn from Syria, abandoning its key stronghold in Qusayr – a vital area for both its influence in the country and its weapons smuggling operations into Lebanon. The collapse of Assad’s regime has had immediate and profound consequences for Hezbollah. With the loss of Qusayr, the party’s ability to maintain its influence in Syria and sustain vital arms supply routes into Lebanon has been severely compromised. The opposition’s advances have also disrupted key arms corridors passing through Syria into the northern Bekaa Valley, a critical lifeline for Hezbollah’s weapons. Hezbollah’s withdrawal from Syria further erodes its logistical and strategic positioning in the region… Hezbollah’s ability to maneuver in Lebanon – particularly in implementing ceasefire agreements – will be increasingly constrained”.
Israeli-Jihadi Fanatics Both
Kit Klarenberg in his Substack column has usefully summarized some of the recent history of covert collaboration between extremist Sunni jihadism and Israel. He cites a rebel fighter speaking to Israeli TV on December 2nd as thanking Tel Aviv for striking Hezbollah and other Resistance groups, stating the opposition was “very satisfied” with the support. Klarenberg continues:
“A September 2018 investigation by US Empire house journal Foreign Policy spelled out in detail “Israel’s secret program to back Syrian rebels.” It documented how, since 2013, Tel Aviv “armed and funded at least 12 rebel groups” in the country. The ostensible purpose was to “prevent Iran-backed fighters and militants of the Islamic State from taking up positions near the Israeli border.”
“The entity’s “military transfers” to anti-Assad opposition groups were vast. They “included assault rifles, machine guns, mortar launchers and transport vehicles.” The materiel was funnelled via the illegally occupied Golan Heights. Israel even “provided salaries to rebel fighters…and supplied additional money the groups used to buy arms on the Syrian black market.” Initially, arms transferred were “mostly US-manufactured”, but these were later “switched” to “non-American weapons…apparently to conceal the source of the assistance.”
“Every step of the way, Israel’s backing of the Syrian opposition ratcheted. Foreign Policy attributes this ever-aggressive stance to Tel Aviv’s failed “appeals” to the US and Russia “to secure a deal that would ensure that Iranian-backed militias would be kept away from southern Syria.” This prompted the entity to “[begin] striking deeper inside Syrian territory, targeting not just individual weapons shipments from Iran to Hezbollah but also Iranian bases across the country.”
“In providing this largesse, Tel Aviv “relied on relationships it developed with individual commanders” of extremist militias, sending “assistance directly to them.” Representatives of these factions “would communicate with Israeli officials by phone and occasionally meet them face to face” in the Golan Heights. “When commanders switched groups and locations, Israeli assistance followed them” - and the entity’s chosen proxies frequently served as distributors of Zionist-supplied weaponry “to other groups”, giving them “outsized influence” in the dirty war…
“However, “as troops loyal to Assad, aided by Russian and Iranian forces, reasserted control over more and more areas of Syria,” Tel Aviv cut a secret deal with Moscow, to the opposition’s detriment.
“Under its auspices, SAA forces returned to “areas adjacent to the Golan Heights,” while Russia promised “to keep Iran-backed militias 80 kilometers” from the area, “and not to start hindering Israeli strikes on Iranian targets across Syria.” Despite this, Tel Aviv didn’t desert its murderous surrogates. As government forces closed in, “rebels reached out to their Israeli contacts and asked for asylum.” They and “their immediate family members” were duly permitted to flee to Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, with Tel Aviv’s assistance and protection.
“Israel presented its presence in Syria as motivated by a desire to defeat ISIS, the same pretext as given by the US occupiers to the north. But in reality, ISIS was no threat to Israel since it depended on Israel’s long-running operation to provide medical assistance to insurgents wounded in the Syrian dirty war in field hospitals dotted across Golan. Once tended to, these belligerents were sent straight back into battle by their Zionist protectors, to fight Hezbollah and the Syrian Arab Army”.