Vital questions arise from the Israeli warplane strike on a Palestinian Islamic Jihad-Hamas training camp, Ein Sahab, in Syria, ten miles northwest of Damascus.
As the first news of the strike came over the wires, I had the uncomfortable thought that Israel had, as in the past since Oslo, hit empty buildings - a false show of hitting their known terrorist tormentors. I thought that Prime Minister Sharon had sought and received ?permission? from Bush, Powell and Rice to ?stage a show? for his electorate, while sending a message to Bashar al-Assad from the White House to back off. That is what would be called ?staged diplomacy? in Washington.
Islamic Jihad, speaking from Syrian-controlled Beirut, Lebanon, stated that "all their bases were in Palestinian ?Occupied? territory and none in Syria." Other reports coming from the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) stated that "the base Ein Sahab that was hit was deserted, except for a simple watchman who was slightly injured."
Israel?s Ambassador to the United Nations, Daniel Gillerman, stated that "the base had been used by a mix of terrorists in bomb-making and other training... that from there the trained terrorists were then filtered into the ?West Bank and Gaza? to set up networks." Gillerman made a cogent and forceful statement in front of the U.N. Security Council as to Syria?s past and present involvement in terror against Israel.
One question now is, was Israel given permission by the Bush Administration to hit a deserted training base? We all recall the numerous times that Israel, under Barak and now Sharon, hit empty police stations and other buildings, which were deliberately evacuated for the incoming strike.
If the camp in Syria was active, there would have been many more casualties than one lightly injured watchman. Clearly, the American satellites would have seen activity as would Israel?s OFEK satellite. If the strike was based on poor intelligence, that could be merely bad luck or possibly deliberate misinformation by the U.S., which tracks such places with great accuracy. If the strike was allowed by Washington so that Sharon could show the Israeli people that he was doing something dramatic to keep his job, then he should be retired from office. A prime minister so tied by a short leash to Washington?s Administration and politics is not a fit defender or leader for the State of Israel, which lives in such a dangerous neighborhood. These doubts must be put to rest immediately and not through one of Israel?s infamous investigations that is designed to take years and fade from attention.
For reasons that have yet to be exposed, Washington?s State Department has been working very diligently to let Syria off the hook as a state sponsor of terrorism. The latest ploy is to get Syria to station some troops at road checkpoints in an effort to stop terrorists of all kinds - including al-Qaeda, Iraqi, Arab Palestinians, home-grown Syrians, and others - from entering Iraq. The propaganda being pumped out of the State Department to the networks is: "See, Syria is helping us a lot."
This is about as phony as it gets, since all know the Syrian border is deliberately porous and checkpoints on known roads will not stop terrorist infiltration. In fact, it is quite likely that Syria is aiding and abetting such terrorist interlinking and interdiction into Iraq.
One can only be reminded of when, during the 1991 Gulf War, Desert Storm, former President George Herbert Walker Bush, James Baker and Colin Powell enlisted Syria into a fake coalition, for which the Syrians were financially induced to send some troops into Kuwait. They arrived without weapons and were stationed far away from the front lines. For that show, they received several billion dollars of American taxpayers? money, plus the 100 Soviet-made aircraft that Saddam sent to Iran, who crated them for transfer to Syria (Iran could not absorb Soviet aircraft into an Air Force mostly bought from America and Europe).
Who in Washington has been Syria?s secret protector for years? This deserves an investigation by Congress, the FBI and the CIA. Syria has been protected at the highest levels of government, including after the terrorist suicide truck bomb that murdered 241 American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon, during 1983 - carried out with Syrian involvement.
Underlying this Syrian/Washington connection is the old and still-alive plan to take Syria off of the State Department?s list of States Sponsoring Terrorism. This would then allow the U.S. to "gift" Syria $20-40 billion dollars worth of American military equipment (just as has been done for Egypt, which has received $50 billion of American taxpayers? money). That money would go from the U.S. Treasury straight to the armament manufacturers, with the U.S. taxpayers picking up the tab. This very suspicious connection with Syria has never been investigated by Congress, so the very dirty game of money transfer diplomacy goes on and on.
Clearly, the fight against global terrorism is very selective. Most terrorists seem to have protectors, who tie the hands of those who really wish to, and have the capability to, eliminate them - like Israel. The Bush Administration is straddling two roads and stumbling on both.
Sadly, I guess Israel has to wait for a massive 9/11 type event before, like Samson, she pulls down the pillars of terror. And the same goes for America under Bush. We must wait for the inevitable next ?big one? before we abandon pinpoint bombing and fight terror in the nations that incubate and fund terror, such as Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Egypt, which funnels weapons to the Arab Palestinian terrorists through tunnels into Gaza.
As the first news of the strike came over the wires, I had the uncomfortable thought that Israel had, as in the past since Oslo, hit empty buildings - a false show of hitting their known terrorist tormentors. I thought that Prime Minister Sharon had sought and received ?permission? from Bush, Powell and Rice to ?stage a show? for his electorate, while sending a message to Bashar al-Assad from the White House to back off. That is what would be called ?staged diplomacy? in Washington.
Islamic Jihad, speaking from Syrian-controlled Beirut, Lebanon, stated that "all their bases were in Palestinian ?Occupied? territory and none in Syria." Other reports coming from the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) stated that "the base Ein Sahab that was hit was deserted, except for a simple watchman who was slightly injured."
Israel?s Ambassador to the United Nations, Daniel Gillerman, stated that "the base had been used by a mix of terrorists in bomb-making and other training... that from there the trained terrorists were then filtered into the ?West Bank and Gaza? to set up networks." Gillerman made a cogent and forceful statement in front of the U.N. Security Council as to Syria?s past and present involvement in terror against Israel.
One question now is, was Israel given permission by the Bush Administration to hit a deserted training base? We all recall the numerous times that Israel, under Barak and now Sharon, hit empty police stations and other buildings, which were deliberately evacuated for the incoming strike.
If the camp in Syria was active, there would have been many more casualties than one lightly injured watchman. Clearly, the American satellites would have seen activity as would Israel?s OFEK satellite. If the strike was based on poor intelligence, that could be merely bad luck or possibly deliberate misinformation by the U.S., which tracks such places with great accuracy. If the strike was allowed by Washington so that Sharon could show the Israeli people that he was doing something dramatic to keep his job, then he should be retired from office. A prime minister so tied by a short leash to Washington?s Administration and politics is not a fit defender or leader for the State of Israel, which lives in such a dangerous neighborhood. These doubts must be put to rest immediately and not through one of Israel?s infamous investigations that is designed to take years and fade from attention.
For reasons that have yet to be exposed, Washington?s State Department has been working very diligently to let Syria off the hook as a state sponsor of terrorism. The latest ploy is to get Syria to station some troops at road checkpoints in an effort to stop terrorists of all kinds - including al-Qaeda, Iraqi, Arab Palestinians, home-grown Syrians, and others - from entering Iraq. The propaganda being pumped out of the State Department to the networks is: "See, Syria is helping us a lot."
This is about as phony as it gets, since all know the Syrian border is deliberately porous and checkpoints on known roads will not stop terrorist infiltration. In fact, it is quite likely that Syria is aiding and abetting such terrorist interlinking and interdiction into Iraq.
One can only be reminded of when, during the 1991 Gulf War, Desert Storm, former President George Herbert Walker Bush, James Baker and Colin Powell enlisted Syria into a fake coalition, for which the Syrians were financially induced to send some troops into Kuwait. They arrived without weapons and were stationed far away from the front lines. For that show, they received several billion dollars of American taxpayers? money, plus the 100 Soviet-made aircraft that Saddam sent to Iran, who crated them for transfer to Syria (Iran could not absorb Soviet aircraft into an Air Force mostly bought from America and Europe).
Who in Washington has been Syria?s secret protector for years? This deserves an investigation by Congress, the FBI and the CIA. Syria has been protected at the highest levels of government, including after the terrorist suicide truck bomb that murdered 241 American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon, during 1983 - carried out with Syrian involvement.
Underlying this Syrian/Washington connection is the old and still-alive plan to take Syria off of the State Department?s list of States Sponsoring Terrorism. This would then allow the U.S. to "gift" Syria $20-40 billion dollars worth of American military equipment (just as has been done for Egypt, which has received $50 billion of American taxpayers? money). That money would go from the U.S. Treasury straight to the armament manufacturers, with the U.S. taxpayers picking up the tab. This very suspicious connection with Syria has never been investigated by Congress, so the very dirty game of money transfer diplomacy goes on and on.
Clearly, the fight against global terrorism is very selective. Most terrorists seem to have protectors, who tie the hands of those who really wish to, and have the capability to, eliminate them - like Israel. The Bush Administration is straddling two roads and stumbling on both.
Sadly, I guess Israel has to wait for a massive 9/11 type event before, like Samson, she pulls down the pillars of terror. And the same goes for America under Bush. We must wait for the inevitable next ?big one? before we abandon pinpoint bombing and fight terror in the nations that incubate and fund terror, such as Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Egypt, which funnels weapons to the Arab Palestinian terrorists through tunnels into Gaza.