The New York Times, a thoroughly Zionist outlet, has finally said something truthful about Israel. The Times has stated on March 28th that:
“Israel — not Hezbollah in Lebanon, nor Hamas in Gaza, nor the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria — is provoking the next war. Counterintuitive though it may be to Israeli and most Western minds, Israel, not its militant Islamist or brutal Syrian enemies, is the aggressor in these border wars.”
The Times has more interesting things to say: “Israel is continually attacking Syria, at times killing Syrians and Hezbollah members even though they’re not attacking Israel. They don’t dare bomb Israeli weapons depots or go after Israeli military figures; Israel is far too strong for that.”
Well, we have been saying this for quite a long time. Israel provoked the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Libya, the war in Syria, and even the war on the civilian population in Gaza.
Israel is the provocateur par excellence in the Middle East, and they have countless agents and think tanks in much of the West. The American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century are classic examples.
The Israeli regime passed their diabolical message to those think tanks and agents in America and elsewhere, and they in turn perpetuate lies and fabrications in the media. And these people don’t care about who lives or dies in the Middle East or America.
This is not speculation. As retired United States Marine Corps general and a former Commander in Chief of the United States Central Command Anthony Zinni put it then: “The Neocons didn’t really give a shit what happened in Iraq and the aftermath.” Zinni also suggested that the Neocons welcomed a chaotic Iraq because that would create a distraction in the Middle East.
George W. Bush himself was somewhat surprised to realize that the Neocons are in bed with the Israelis. Bush once asked his father to define Neoconservatism.
“‘What’s a Neocon?’ ‘Do you want names, or a description?’ answered [the elder Bush]. ‘Description.’ ‘Well,’ said the former president of the United States, ‘I’ll give it to you in one word: Israel.’”
Scholars such as Halper and Clarke note the same thing, arguing that for the neocons, there is “a keen interest in the affairs of Israel” and Ginsberg confirms that a central focus of the Neoconservatives is “their attachment to Israel.”
Here terms such as “republican” and “democrat” are made meaningless because both are used equally to further the Neoconservative agenda. For example, Jewish mogul George Soros used his money to campaign against George W. Bush’s run for president.
Yet Soros later paid at least $150,000 “for lobbying work” to Randy Scheunemann, a Jewish neocon who was John Mc-Cain’s foreign policy adviser and later Sarah Palin’s aide. (And Scheunemann did not disappoint, because he has done major underground based on Jewish interests rather than American interests.) In a nutshell, Neoconservativism seeks to redefine America in its own image.
Murray Friedman writes that the Neocons “clearly differed from traditional conservatives like Friedrich von Hayek and Russell Kirk. The latter looked back nostalgically to a pastoral America of small towns and tight communities; the former, on the other hand, felt at home in the modern industrial world.”
So, it is not far-fetched to posit that Israel is a rogue state. Israel is even siding with another terrorist state (Saudi Arabia) in order to destroy another country called Yemen. As Jim W. Dean reported back in 2015:
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had issued direct orders for the Israeli air force to send fighter jets to the Saudi-led air raid on Yemen.”
The Israelis ended up fighting the so-called rebels in Yemen, but the Israeli regime created the rebels and even supported them back in the 1960s. “During Yemen’s 1962-1970 civil war,” we are told, “the Jewish state airlifted a steady supply of money and arms to the ruling monarchy.”
In summary, the New York Times is slowly but surely catching up with what we have been saying for years. They even stated that “Hezbollah and Syria are well and truly deterred, and if Israel were to simply let them be, they would have to be crazy to strike first.”
The Times should have followed this idea to its logical conclusion. If Israel continues to target Hezbollah and Syria without serious or moral justification, isn’t it right to say that Israel is a troublemaker?
OTHER USEFUL RESOURCES:
DARKEST WOMAN (Handpicked Tactics, Techniques And Even Quick-Fixes Tips)
US WATER REVOLUTION (Generate Your Clean Water Anywhere)
ALIVE AFTER THE FALL (Key Survival Situation Procedures and Knowledge for You and Me)
DROUGHT USA (Secure unlimited fresh clean water)
SURVIVE THE END DAYS (Exposes the biggest cover up of our president)
SURVIVAL MD (Learn how to survive any crisis situation)
BLACKOUT USA (EMP survival and preparedness guide)
CONQUERING THE COMING COLLAPSE (Financial advice and preparedness )
LIBERTY GENERATOR (Easy DIY to build your own off-grid free energy device)
BACKYARD LIBERTY (Easy and cheap DIY Aquaponic system to grow your organic and living food bank)