Christchurch Attack: Israeli Mossad’s Years of Espionage Activities in the City

By Daniel Haqiqatjou

Mossad Christchurch 463f5

The massacre of Muslims this past Friday in Christchurch, New Zealand left me in a daze of anger and grief. Muslims are being gunned down and bombed all over the world and little is being done about it.

For this post, I want to compile some of the oddities with the details of the shooting. Things are not what they seem.

The below is broken down into sections for ease of reading.

The Manifesto: No Jews?

Tarrant allegedly wrote a manifesto called The Great Replacement explaining his motivations for killing Muslims. The problem is, the 73-page document reads like it was written by someone who is trying very hard to pretend to be a White Nationalist.

What do I mean by this?

Well, whoever wrote the document claims that he was mainly influenced by the internet.

“From where did you receive/research/develop your beliefs?” the murderer responds, “The internet, of course. You will not find the truth anywhere else.”

The influence of internet meme culture is apparent in the manifesto and even in Tarrant’s horrifying video. White nationalists online immediately recognized the use of memes. In the video, for example, he says, “Subscribe to PewDiePie,” which is a white nationalist meme referring to popular white Youtuber PewDiePie, which trolls on 4chan and elsewhere envision (ironically) as a fascist neo-Nazi leader.

But there is one glaring inconsistency.

If you ever visit places on the internet frequented  and owned by White Nationalists, such as 4chan, 8chan, Daily Stormer, or Gab, one immediate, indubitable fact hits you in the face:

These people hate Jews.

More than anyone else, White Nationalists hate Jews and are not afraid of expressing it with thousands of different memes. More than Blacks, more than Latinos, more than Muslims, Jews are at the top of the hate list. This is because White Nationalists believe that Jews are engaging in a genocidal project to destroy the White race. According to the White Nationalists, Jews are doing this primarily by pushing for immigration. As high birth-rate immigrants flood White nations and non-Whites and Whites intermix, eventually the White race will become a minority and will, within a few generations, cease to exist.

This, according to the White Nationalists on the internet, is a Jewish plot that Jews have engineered through their pushing of pro-immigration legislation, their control of media, etc.

What is bizarre about Tarrant’s alleged manifesto is that he says a great deal about this plot. He rails against immigration, fertility rates, and “White genocide.” But he doesn’t mention who the supposed plotters are. Why? Why is Tarrant following the White Nationalist script to the letter but doesn’t mention Jews once in the entire 73 pages?

Well, actually, he does mention Jews just once:

“A jew living in israel is no enemy of mine, so long as they do not seek to subvert or harm my people.”

The statement is especially strange since, according to the dominant White Nationalist discourse, this is exactly what Jews are engaged in: harming white people, genociding them. In fact, White Nationalists often bemoan the fact that Jews have Israel as their Jewish ethno-state while allegedly preventing Whites from having their own White ethno-states.

Passages like this stand out:

Why attack muslims if all high fertility immigrants are the issue?
“They are the most despised group of invaders in the West, attacking them receives the greatest level of support.” He ranted about climate change, saying that by killing “the invaders” he could “kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.”

White Nationalists reserve these kinds of statements for Jews, not Muslims. For White Nationalists, Muslims are just low IQ pawns used by Jews, but pose no serious threat on their own.

So why does an alleged White Nationalist who is so concerned about immigration and preserving the White race completely ignore the biggest, most prominent component of White Nationalist discourse?

This is like an alleged fan of the 90s Chicago Bulls writing a detailed 70-page tribute to the team’s amazing achievements in that decade without once mentioning Michael Jordan. If someone were to read such a tribute, the lack of mentioning Jordan would be more than a glaring omission. It would seem like the writer were deliberately trying to avoid him.

The same thing with this manifesto. Something doesn’t add up.

The Manifesto: American or Australian Spelling Conventions?

Another thing I noticed while reading the document is that the author switches between English spelling conventions haphazardly. At times, his spelling is consistent with the American convention and other times with Australian. Tarrant himself is Australian, so we would expect him to use Australian conventions, or at the very least, we would expect him to be consistent in using one convention or another. But oddly this is not the case.

For example, we read about Australian spelling:

Unlike British English, which is split between -ise and -ize in words such as organise and realise, with -ize favoured by the Oxford English Dictionary and -ise listed as a variant, -ize is rare in Australian English and designated as a variant by the Macquarie Dictionary.

Yet the -ize variant, which is standard in American English, is dominant in the manifesto.

The words using this spelling are: Balkanize, energized, colonize, radicalized, globalized, industrialized, pulverized, commoditized, trivialized, strategize, realize, utilized, finalize, destabilize, deracialized, deculturalized, polarizing.

If you check these words in the official dictionary of Australian English, MacQuarie’s, you can see that the -ise spelling is standard throughout.

manifesto3 bcc6f


Another example of American spelling is the use of the word “practice.” In Australian spelling, when used as a noun, practice is spelled with -ice, but when it is used as a verb, such as in practised or practising, the -ise ending is used. Again, MacQuarie’s Dictionary can be consulted to see this distinction.

Yet, in the manifesto, this Australian convention is not followed. The -ice version of practice is used in the verbal form, such as when he writes on page 62:

“This is a tactic practiced not only on the French people, but on all the peoples of Europe, effectively destroying the nations identity at its core and smashing apart all bonds which a successful, unified nation is built upon.”

And also on page 69:

“In the United States, perhaps more than anywhere else in the world, the cult of the individual has been practiced for the longest time and with the deepest devotion.”

Now someone might respond to this by saying, well, maybe Tarrant was educated in the US. Maybe he had American teachers when he was first learning how to read and write.

This might be a plausible explanation if it weren’t for the fact that the manifesto also uses Australian conventions for other words like: labour, rumours, colour, honours, endeavours. Also words like scepticism are in the manifesto, which in the American convention is spelled with a ‘k’.

Strangest of all is the case of “favor” and “favour” which are spelled in both the Australian and American versions in the document.

Why would we find these kinds of inconsistencies? Switching between spelling conventions is not something that happens out of sloppiness or haste. The manifesto has minimal spelling errors and the grammar is not too bad.

Perhaps one explanation is he just copy and pasted snippets from the internet and didn’t bother to standardize the spellings throughout. Perhaps. But the psychopaths who write these manifestos put a lot of time and care into their work. They are obsessed with carefully constructing what they hope will be read by millions who they want to inspire to follow their murderous footsteps. The author of this manifesto indicates having such an obsessive personality:

Q: Is this your complete writings and views?

Unfortunately not, there was a much larger work written, roughly 240 pages long that spoke on many issues and went into much depth, but in a moment of unbridled self criticism, I deleted the entire work and started again, two weeks before the attack itself.

I was left with a short period of time to create a new work and only leave my views half finished. I will let my actions speak for themselves.

Would such a self-critical writer resort to copy pasting passages into his magnum opus and overlook numerous spelling irregularities?


Multiple Shooters

From the beginning of the news reporting, multiple shooters were reported by witnesses and, ultimately, multiple individuals were arrested and even appeared in court.

The Washington Post reports:

Police named Tarrant the primary suspect in what was the deadliest attack in New Zealand’s history — and one of the worst cases of right-wing terrorism in years — after the 28 year-old Australian allegedly stormed two mosques during mid-day prayers on Friday and mowed down dozens of huddling and fleeing worshipers while he streamed the killing live over the internet with a helmet-mounted camera.

Two others have been arrested in connection with the shootings: A second man, 18-year old Daniel John Burrough, was scheduled to appear in court later Saturday and face charges of inciting racial hostility or ill-will. A third accomplice remained unidentified.

They also reported that the court hearing for Tarrant was out of the ordinary:

During [Tarrant’s] hearing, which was closed to the public by Judge Paul Keller in the interest of safety — an unusual move for New Zealand courts — Tarrant did not enter a plea to the murder charge.

Yet the manifesto is written as if it were only written by one person acting alone. The self-asked questions are asked in reference to one person, e.g., “Do you carry out the attack for fame?” And the answers are also in the singular, e.g.,  “But the aftershock from my actions will ripple for years to come.”

Early police reports mentioned three active shooters.

Security analysts were also quoted on Friday saying that, based on the scope of the attack, multiple parties were involved:

3:53pm: Security Analyst Paul Buchanan says he has seen the gunman’s manifesto and the shooting is “clearly a case of a white supremacist”.

He says the shooter would likely have had support in carrying out the attack.

Later news reports mention two other “associates” being arrested along with Tarrant:

Two other people have been arrested, described as the terrorist’s “associates”, while a third who was earlier apprehended is not connected to the attacks.

If all these reports weren’t enough, there is also video footage of what is claimed to be two shooters other than Tarrant:

Was Tarrant acting alone? Or were there other shooters involved?


If this mass killing of 49 Muslims wasn’t carried out by a White Nationalist acting alone, who was responsible? Who would benefit from this? No need to speculate too much for now, as details are still turning up. But some interesting facts about Christchurch are worth citing.

The Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, is known to have had espionage activities in the city.


Talking About Israel

By Philip Giraldi

Ilahn Omar Carlos Latuff c6e3e

recent article by Andrew Sullivan in the New York magazine considers how one might discuss the issue of Israel and its powerful domestic lobby without being accused of anti-Semitism. Sullivan is a keen observer of the dynamics of American political power and the article pretty clearly lays out why the relationship with Israel is poison for the United States, but he cautions that words matter and one has to be careful about the packaging surrounding any critique of the Israel Lobby and its American Jewish supporters.

Sullivan begins with:

“Let’s get this out of the way first: Using the phrases ‘all about the Benjamins’ and ‘allegiance to a foreign country’ when referring to the Israel lobby in D.C., as freshman Democratic representative Ilhan Omar recently did, is anti-Semitic. It should be possible to criticize Washington’s relationship with Israel without deploying crude and freighted language like this.”

And that is precisely where some critics of the Israel-America relationship might have a problem with observers like Sullivan as what for him passes as “crude and freighted” is for others frankness. Okay, “all about the Benjamins” is slang and the implication is that Jewish money is what has corrupted American politics and the media to stifle any honest discussion on Israel-Palestine and to skew U.S. government activity in the Middle East so that it favors what Israel perceives to be its own interests. This process operates right out in the open with Israel-firster Jewish billionaires Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban respectively serving as principal donors for the Republican and Democratic parties.

Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson b6f0f

This flood of Jewish money into foreign policy generation has done incalculable damage to the actual interests of the United States as Sullivan, to his credit, makes clear in his article. The point is that politics in America is all about money and Ilhan Omar was quite right to make that connection. Most congress-critters do not love Israel because they honestly like the hordes of lobbyists that it is able to send their way. In fact, many of them privately complain about the pressure, but they do love the campaign donations and the lucrative sinecure jobs in the financial services industry that come with their retirements. And they also know that if they cross Israeli interests while in office they will soon be unemployed.

And as for the “allegiance to a foreign country,” how else does one describe doing everything possible to favor a foreign state at the expense of the nation where one lives? Sullivan himself provides ample evidence in his article that the one-way relationship with Israel inflicts major damage on the United States and that the enabling of that process comes from a disciplined and well-funded lobbying effort that operates at all levels of government and also through the media. Is that not allegiance to a foreign country?

After expressing the “thou shalt nots” regarding Israel, Andrew Sullivan pulls no punches in his article, which should be read in extenso. He writes “The basic facts are not really in dispute. A very powerful lobby deploys the money and passions of its members to ensure that a foreign country gets very, very special treatment from the U.S.” and then goes on to detail exactly how Israel is a major liability to America. He discusses the $3.8 billion it receives annually in spite of the fact that is a wealthy country, its failure to support U.S. foreign policy objectives, its unwillingness to curtail a brutal occupation of the West Bank, its humiliation of President Obama because he entered into an agreement with Iran, and its nearly complete subjugation of Congress, congressional leaders and the White House.

Sullivan fails to mention how Israel also spies on the United States, steals U.S. developed technology and benefits hugely from beneficial trade agreements that kill American jobs. And there are also the “suspected but not proven” issues like Israel’s role in 9/11, its apparent manipulation of Jewish American officials in the Pentagon to start the disastrous 2003 war with Iraq, and its current clandestine agitation for Washington to attack Iran. Jewish billionaires also are the prime sources of “charitable” contributions that feed the illegal settlement outposts on the West Bank populated largely by fundamentalist Jews whose prime mission is to make the lives of their Palestinian neighbors so miserable that they will emigrate. That is sometimes referred to as ethnic cleansing. Jared Kushner, Jason Greenblatt, and David Friedman, the key components of the Trump Administration Middle East “peace” team, are all passionate about Israel and have all supported the illegal settlements. Friedman, in particular, has sought to eliminate the word “occupation” from official U.S. government descriptions of the Israeli activity in Palestinian areas.

Andrew Sullivan 1c6fc

And then there is the Israeli predilection to use unarmed Palestinian demonstrators for target practice and to bomb schools and vital infrastructure in Gaza, which once upon a time most Americans would have considered war crimes or crimes against humanity. Sullivan does mention how Congress is willing to pass legislation to restrict freedom of speech if such speech involves criticism of Israel, noting that the very first bill to come up in the Senate after the recent shutdown was supporting the punishment of those who advocate nonviolent boycotting of Israel. He might have added how Israel’s friends at state and local levels are pushing to rewrite world history texts to eliminate any references to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. And holocaust study is becoming mandatory in many U.S. school systems without any suggestion that the standard narrative might be in large part bogus. And then there are the holocaust museums springing up like mushrooms at the taxpayers’ expense. Is it all driven by money and enabled by the power that money buys to propagandize for Israel? And is it maybe just a bit of allegiance to a foreign country? Yes indeed, thank you, Ilhan Omar, for saying so.

All of this warm and fuzzy feeling about Israel did not happen by magic. By one estimate there are 600 Christian and Jewish organizations in the United States that have at least part of their agendas the promotion of the relationship with Israel. Christian Zionists are formidable in numbers but the money, as well as the political and media access that drive the so-called Israel Lobby process, is Jewish. The directors and presidents of those organizations meet regularly and discuss what they can do to help Israel. How does one describe such collusion? Some might prefer to call it a conspiracy.

So how should one view the dystopic nature of the relationship with Israel? No one has ever described it better than America’s first president George Washington. In his Farewell Address he wrote:

“The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest…So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.”

Andrew Sullivan concludes with some optimism and also a warning, which should be heeded: “Can our current controversy lead to a less inhibited debate? I sure hope so. Will that actually happen? All I can say is that AIPAC will wield all the power it can muster to prevent it.” It is, to be sure, AIPAC versus all decent Americans and one has to hope that this time the voice of the people will be heard in defense of the actual interests of the United States of America rather than those of Israel.

By Invoking India-Israel Relations, Pakistani Politicians Have Finally Learned The Art of Soft Power

By Adam Garrie

For decades, Pakistan has been cursed with political leaders who seemed incapable of grasping the importance of soft power as a tool for accomplishing important strategic goals without incurring any material expense. Last month however, the penny dropped and now the PTI government appears to be gradually mastering the art of perception management.

A moment of reckoning arrived when throughout the month of February, after non-state terrorists operating along the Pakistan-Iran border conducted an attack on Islamic Revolution Guard Corps fighters in south-eastern Iran, Tehran ended up turning against Islamabad in terms of official rhetoric. Rather than handle the issue through private diplomatic channels with its Pakistani neighbour and potentially important partner, Iranian officials instead began making defamatory anti-Pakistan statements which appeared to be straight out of India’s age-old propaganda playbook. Matters became all the more awkward when Iran and its arch enemy Israel appeared to agree on their assessment of the Pulwama incident in Indian occupied Kashmir.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

But whilst Iran’s outrageous outbursts against Pakistan and Tehran’s strange agreement with Israel on a major issue of international attention were more the result of internal political infighting in Tehran than on anything more directly related to geo-strategy, Pakistan not only took the high road, but took the intelligent and strategic road.

Pakistan has under the Premiership of Imran Khan, become increasingly like the Switzerland of the Ummah (global Islamic community). By refraining from taking sides in the disputes of other Muslim majority nations, Pakistan has been able to balance good relations with Saudi Arabia and the UAE on the one side and Turkey and Qatar on the other – just to offer one such important example.

As such, Turkey was the first nation in the world to offer its role as a mediator in the recent flaring up of tensions over Indian occupied Kashmir, whilst Turkish officials also showed solidarity with fraternal Pakistan. Then, at a meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the pan-Islamic group of nations offered its withering condemnation of Indian aggression against Kashmiris, in a move which showed unambiguous solidarity with Pakistan. The OIC’s statement took on a new level of relevance because both Turkey and Pakistan (along with Qatar and Iran) boycotted the meeting in the UAE. As such, it is logical to assume that Pakistan’s Saudi partners and Emirati partners had a vital role in either authoring or green-lighting the OIC’s condemnation of India that was delivered at a meeting in which major Indian officials were present. This itself demonstrates that even in the absence of a Pakistani or pro-Pakistani Turkish delegation, Saudi Arabia and the UAE had the courage to support Pakistan due to Imran Khan’s ability to balance good relations between geopolitical rivals in the Ummah.

Of course, Pakistan-Iran relations are more complex than Pakistan-Turkey relations, Pakistan-Saudi relations, Pakistan-Qatar relations or Pakistan-UAE relations. This if the reality because of three things: a post-1979 history of mutual distrust due primarily to issues relating to Afghanistan, the Indian funded port in Iran’s Chabahar and finally, the difficulties that transpire due to the presence of non-state extremist groups that in spite of their declining numbers, are still occasionally active on the Iran-Pakistan border.

Because Iran often vacillates between viewing Pakistan as a brotherly Muslim nation and simplistically viewing Pakistan as a rival because of its strong relations with countries like Saudi Arabia (a line of thinking which conveniently forgets that Russia, China and even India have good relations with Riyadh) – it was anyone’s guess how Iran would respond to the recent Kashmir crisis.

As it turned out, Iran initially approached the matter by appearing to take India’s side. This week however, the tone of Iran’s official state media shifted for one clear reason: Pakistani politicians have at long last become articulate in exposing the incredibly strong India-Israel partnership that continues to go from strength-to-strength under the Premiership of Narendra Modi.

Now that Pakistani politicians are finally discussing Israel’s involvement in south Asia, such statements from Pakistan are guaranteed to perk the ears of international audiences in both the Ummah and in the west – audiences who tend to be more sympathetic to Palestinian issues than to the occupation of Kashmir. The reason that Palestine tends to be a more amplified issue among non-south Asian audiences than Kashmir, is due to the fact that in recent years, international celebrities like Roger Waters and Cristiano Ronaldo, as well as mainstream western politicians like Britain’s Jeremy Corbyn and American Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, have helped to raise the profile of the Palestinian issue which in turn has elicited a major response from many powerful western Israel supporters. By contrast, India’s slick propaganda campaigns have helped to muffle discussions of Kashmir outside of south Asia and especially in respect of discussions in the west.

There are however several subtle but very real changes afoot in respect of how the world is now viewing Kashmir and the wider India-Pakistan conflict

1. Non-south Asian media are at long last realising that while India portrays itself as a kind of spiritual Disneyland to westerners through propaganda like the ‘Incredible India’ campaign, internal Indian media has largely become a den of extremism.

2. Mainstream western media is finally reporting on the concerns surrounding the erstwhile ignored partnership between India and Israel.

3. While many Muslim majority nations have good relations with India, now that even westerners are questioning India’s direction under BJP rule, it would be counter-productive for Islamic majority states ot be seen as more pro-India than even a habitually Islamophobic west.

Realising this trend, Pakistani politicians have issued several important statements about Israel in recent days:

1. Pakistan has accused Israel of conspiring with India to conduct a missile attack on Pakistan that was ultimately thwarted by Pakistani intelligence.

2. Pakistan’s Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Ali Muhammad Khan referred to Israel as an enemy of Pakistan, a natural ally of India and a country with which Pakistan will never have formal diplomatic relations.

3. Unverified rumours that Pakistan has captured an Israeli pilot who took part in a failed India airstrike against Pakistan have helped to change the nature of the debate on the matter both within Pakistan and outside of south Asia.

The result of Pakistan invoking Israel as a pro-Indian nemesis has consequently resulted in the following:

1. The wider Ummah will now want to publicly distance itself form India to varying degrees. This is not to say that the states of the Ummah will somehow boycott India (far from it), but by withdrawing would-be soft power approval of Indian geo-strategic manoeuvring, Muslim countries will tacitly help Pakistani statements about how New Delhi treats its Muslim neighbours, the Muslims of occupied Kashmir and its Muslim citizens, to be heard in a more impactful and unfiltered manner.

2. By associating India with Israel, not only will the Ummah think twice before offering public displays of political affection towards India, but western media outlets courting the Corbyn-Omar style of left-populism in the west, will think twice before glossing over Kashmir or otherwise taking India’s side.

3.  The Islamic Republic of Iran, the most anti-Israel country in the world, will now have to be more balanced in its relations with both India and Pakistan, or else risk being seen as hypocritical in respect of its well known statements and position regarding Israel.

Taken as a whole, Pakistan’s government and ruling party have at long last begun to think strategically rather than ambivalently and are now using soft power tools to help shift the debate on Kashmir and India, both the Ummah and in the west.

97 Year Old Palestinian Speaks About His Battles During The Nakba — Rebel Voice

The Nakba was, as the name suggests, a catastrophe for the people of Palestine. Their villages were destroyed; their population slaughtered in numerous massacres by Zionist fanatics, and their land stolen in a concerted program of ethnic cleansing. Today, some of those who fled the brutality of the foreigners live in refugee camps surrounding their […]

via 97 Year Old Palestinian Speaks About His Battles During The Nakba — Rebel Voice

The Story Of The Nakba, The Ethnic Cleansing Of Palestine By Zionist Fanatics — Rebel Voice

The story of the Nakba (Arabic for Catastrophe) is one of ethnic cleansing and genocidal tendencies as practiced by the foreign Zionists who invaded Palestine from the end of the 19th century until after the conclusion of World War 2. During that torrid time, approximately 800,000 indigenous Palestinians were expelled from their homes by European […]

via The Story Of The Nakba, The Ethnic Cleansing Of Palestine By Zionist Fanatics — Rebel Voice

Israel’s Hands Are All Over India’s Escalating Conflict with Pakistan — Astute News

When I heard the first news report, I assumed it was an Israeli air raid on Gaza. Or Syria. Airstrikes on a “terrorist camp” were the first words. A “command and control centre” destroyed, many “terrorists” killed. The military was retaliating for a “terrorist attack” on its troops, we were told. An Islamist “jihadi” base had been […]

via Israel’s Hands Are All Over India’s Escalating Conflict with Pakistan — Astute News

Netanyahu Insists on Involving Israel in War: What is Moscow’s Position?

By Elijah J. Magnier

421415 f201d

Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Moscow to “test the stand of Russia and its allies in Syria on their intention to go to war if Israel bombs Syrian and Iranian objectives in the Levant”. Netanyahu is seeking some answers related to the reaction of Russia and its potential participation or non-participation in a possible intermittent battle in the midst of war (as Israel prefers to call such interventions,”a battle between wars”). This tactic, an Israeli specialty, might take the form of Israel bombing the Russian S-300 surface to air missiles batteries delivered to the Syrian army as a bulwark against any future Israeli aggression.

“Iran and Syria informed their Russian ally that any significant military hit by Israel that threatens their national security will be answered immediately and on a disproportionate level”, said a source among top decision makers in Syria.

The last Israeli violation of Syrian sovereignty was a provocation against an empty soft target in Quneitra by Israeli ground artillery. That was considered a childish gambit by Netanyahu, who is considered by his allies – according to the source – as lacking military expertise and knowledgeable only on the political level.

According to the source within the top leadership in Syria, “Israel would like to delay the American withdrawal from Syria by triggering a battle but not a wider war. Targeting Syrian and Iranian military objectives after a clear warning from both countries could boost the Israeli Prime Minister’s chances in his forthcoming election campaign only if we don’t respond. If the trio Syria-Iran-Hezbollah decides to respond with a wider war against any Israeli attack, and this is what has been agreed on by all parties concerned, Netanyahu will most likely diminish his own prospects of winning another term”.

“The Israeli Prime Minister will look weak if he doesn’t respond. And if he does, he will be facing destructive battle on many fronts. At first, Syria will respond but if Iranian and Hezbollah forces deployed within the Syrian Army are hit, then the battle will widen depending on how far Netanyahu wants to go. In this latter scenario, Netanyahu’s chances of re-election are expected to be very slim, once precision missiles start falling in the heart of Israel. Israelis today consider any war-adventure by the Israeli Prime Minister as unnecessary. In this event, the support Netanyahu gathered at Warsaw summit will be thrown out of the window”, said the source.

Israel has the military capability to neutralise and hit the Russian S-300, the surface-to-air anti-aircraft and missiles system. The Syrian-Iranian alliance does not rely on this system as a key component to confront Israel. Although Hezbollah did not have either the S-300 or even S-200 anti-aircraft missiles during the last war imposed by Israel in 2006, it managed to achieve a balance of power against the almighty Israeli air force and military machine.

Today Syria has precision missiles with a rich Israeli bank of objectives to work on when the Resistance axis decides to respond without need of Russian approval.  This is why it is important to understand that Russia and its allies don’t necessarily have the same stand and reaction. Moscow enjoys good relations with Israel it wants to maintain, and does not want to be part of the permanent Israeli-Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah conflict. Neither are the latter three forces ess lconcerned about the good Russian-Israeli relationship. Moscow’s forces in Syria – according to the source – are welcome to count the missiles exchanged over their heads in the Levant if Israel wants war.

If Russia stays out for fear of being dragged into a war in which America would intervenes in favour of Israel, the axis will have no objection. “US forces have been already in a state of permanent war against these three forces for many years”.

“Washington has had a direct share in all the Israeli wars on Arab countries since the sixties of the last century to the last war on Hezbollah in 2006. Its forces have been overtly present in Israel for a long time and participate on the ground in the Syrian war. Therefore, this axis has no fear of US involvement. As to the question: What is Russia’s position on this? This is a Russian affair that we do not want to interfere with, just as Russia does not want to interfere in the conflict between us and Israel”, said the source.

Nothing new is expected out of Netanyahu’s visit to Moscow. It is most probably a media-election campaign event because most of the Israeli Prime Minister’s time is currently devoted to his re-election. The equation is very simple: if Netanyahu wants to test the Syrian response, he will get an undesirable and unexpected battle. If he wants a wider battle, he will get war on multiple fronts.

Syrian leaders believe that Trump will ultimately withdraw from Syria. The plan to restore full control of the Syrian territory occupied by the US forces doesn’t depend on an American President under heavy pressure from an administration which wants the troops to stay. Sooner or later the US will have to go. Syria is relying on its strength and the strength of its allies, especially now that the danger to Syria is declining day by day. The option of starting a battle and expanding its perimeter really depends on Netanyahu, who has the initiative. If Putin can convince him not to play in the Syrian arena, this would bea Russian achievement. But the Resistance axis is not counting on such an outcome; its members are instead arming their missiles.

%d bloggers like this: