Raymond van den Boogaard van de NRC 4

Wat gebeurt er wanneer een mainstream-journalist, wiens producten niet wezenijk mogen afwijken van de burgermanssmaak, de werkelijkheid moet beschrijven? Ik bedoel, wat is het journalistieke resultaat van Raymond van den Boogaard's opvatting dat het 'gevoelsleven zelf de echte werkelijkheid [is] – deze chaotische, heftige wereld van affecties, angsten, associaties, tegenspraken, verlangens en nachtmerries'? Wat betekent het in concreto voor de journalistiek dat Raymond allereerst  'een man wil,' lijken, meer wil 'zijn dan een betekenisloze anekdote'? Welnu, laat ik een willekeurig voorbeeld geven. In de NRC van 7 augustus 2014 schreef Van den Boogaard onder de kop 'Een schril protest namens de vakbond' het volgende:

Soms hoop je dat je iets verkeerd verstaan hebt. Ik zat zondag op het Museumplein in Amsterdam een ijsje te eten, tegenover de Gaza-demonstratie. Het was een sympathieke bijeenkomst zonder antisemitische of ISIS-wanklanken. Op één na dan.

Ik had al een uur in de zon naar toespraken geluisterd, dus een ijsje kon er wel af, dacht ik, voordat de stoet zich in beweging zou zetten. Verstrooid volgde ik nog wat in de verte gezegd werd. Aan het woord kwam een bestuurslid van de vakbond Abvakabo FNV, eigenlijk de enige Nederlandse maatschappelijke organisatie van betekenis die op Gaza-betogingen acte de présence geeft.

Ik had deze Lot van Baaren al gehoord op de eerste Gaza-betoging in Den Haag vorige maand, waar zij op schrille toon het NOS Journaal en ‘de media’ in het algemeen aan de schandpaal nagelde, als maakten alle Nederlandse kranten en journaals deel uit van één grote, anti-Palestijnse samenzwering. Onzin natuurlijk, maar zij mag dat vinden.

Plotseling ving ik iets op, dat me betreuren deed dat ik niet met een notitieblok vooraan bij het podium stond. Zei Van Baaren echt wat ik meende te horen? Je kunt als journalist bezwaarlijk afgaan op iets wat je maar half gehoord hebt, maar gelukkig heeft de Abvakabo de letterlijke tekst van de toespraak een paar dagen later op een website gezet.

Zou ze bedoelen dat Herzl al van plan was de Palestijnen te bombarderen?

Onder de titel Wat is er toch aan de hand met Nederland? verwondert Van Baaren zich over het geringe aantal protesten tegen ‘Gaza’ en zegt: 'We weten toch dat dit niet draait om joden, niet om de verschrikkelijke Holocaust of alle onrecht uit de Tweede Wereldoorlog? We weten toch dat dit gaat om het uitvoeren van een Zionistische politieke agenda van vér voor die tijd?'

Wat zou zij bedoelen? Dat de grondlegger van het zionisme, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), al van plan was om de Palestijnen te bombarderen? Of dat de socialistische kibboetz-beweging van de jaren twintig en dertig van de vorige eeuw de Palestijnen wilde verdrijven? Van Baaren leeft kennelijk in de waangedachte dat de essentie van het zionisme en de staat Israël wordt geopenbaard in het beleid van de huidige Israëlische regering.

Antisemitisme komt in vele gedaanten. Er is het sluipend gif van de pesterijen op straat tegen de drager van een keppeltje, van misselijke grapjes over gaskamers, van anonieme bedreigingen. Zulk antisemitisme neemt de laatste tijd in heel Europa toe, maar daar wil ik Van Baaren allerminst van verdenken, oprecht bewogen als zij lijkt door de gruwelen van Gaza.

Er is echter ook een ander, meer ideologisch antisemitisme, dat de Holocaust ontkent of vindt dat we daar eens over moeten ophouden, dat joodse samenzweringen wil zien in politiek, economie en pers, en ‘geheime plannen van het Jodendom’ die ontdekt worden. In die antisemitische traditie passen de opmerkingen van Lot van Baaren helaas feilloos. Van Abvakabo, met 350.000 leden, valt me dat zwaar tegen.

http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/van/2014/augustus/07/een-schril-protest-namens-de-vakbond-1407316 

Met andere woorden, als spreekbuis van de gevestigde orde probeerde Raymond van den Boogaard ten tijde van de zionistische terreur tegen de Palestijnse bevolking in Gaza, waarbij onder andere meer dan 500 Palestijnse kinderen werden gedood, de kritiek hierop te stigmatiseren als 'ideologisch antisemitisme.' Voor de gezagsgetrouwe pers in Nederland, met haar 'chaotische, heftige wereld van affecties, angsten, associaties, tegenspraken, verlangens en nachtmerries,' geldt namelijk dat wanneer Israel op grote schaal mensenrechten schendt en het oorlogsrecht aan zijn laars lapt dit terecht is aangezien Israel een 'Joodse staat' is. Hier is sprake van omgekeerd antisemitisme, dat ik gemakshalve filosemitisme zal noemen, waarbij de vroegere haat tegen joden vandaag de dag tegen een ander semitische groep wordt gericht, namelijk de Arabieren. Wat dat betreft heeft Raymond groot gelijk te constateren dat 'Antisemitisme in vele gedaanten [komt].' Laten we daarom de manifestatie ervan bij hem eens belichten. De NRC-journalist stelt de retorische vraag of vakbondsbestuurder Lot van Baaren bedoelt dat

de grondlegger van het zionisme, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), al van plan was om de Palestijnen te bombarderen? Of dat de socialistische kibboetz-beweging van de jaren twintig en dertig van de vorige eeuw de Palestijnen wilde verdrijven? Van Baaren leeft kennelijk in de waangedachte dat de essentie van het zionisme en de staat Israël wordt geopenbaard in het beleid van de huidige Israëlische regering.

Hier tuimelt Raymond in zijn zelf gegraven kuil, want inderdaad collega Van den Boogaard was Theodore Herzl voorstander van het verdrijven van de Palestijnse bevolking, niet alleen uit wat nu Israel heet maar ook uit de bezette en belegerde Westbank en Gaza, dus uit héél Eretz Israel. Als je je zou hebben verdiept in dit toch al bijna een eeuw durende conflict dan was je op de hoogte geweest van het feit dat Theodore Herzl in 1897 had laten weten dat

We shall endeavor to expel the poor population across the border unnoticed, procuring employment for it in transit countries, but denying it any employment in our own country.

Kennelijk ga jij ervan uit dat de zionisten streefden naar de vestiging van een Joodse staat, waarin, voorafgaand aan de vestiging ervan, slechts 7 procent van het land eigendom was van joden, die ongeveer 30 procent van de bevolking in Palestina uitmaakte, en de overgrote meerderheid van de bevolking ook nog eens islamitisch dan wel christelijk was. Dat is een opmerkelijk onlogische en ik durf zelfs te stellen buitengewoon stupide gedachte, die meer over jou onthult dan over de realiteit van de geopolitiek. Nee, Raymond, hoe 'chaotisch,' jouw 'gevoelsleven' ook moge zijn, en hoe 'heftig' jouw 'wereld van affecties, angsten, associaties, tegenspraken, verlangens en nachtmerries' is 'de echte werkelijkheid' blijft toch anders, namelijk deze:

Posted on December 3, 2001

BASED On Declassified Israeli Documents & Personal Diaries

It is worth emphasizing that the 'Jewish state' was founded on the basis of an ancient Biblical map, and to this date the 'Jewish state' still refuses to declare its borders in favor of future expansion. There is nothing like this Biblical map to send shivers among Arabs and Muslims, since its borders spans the occupied West Bank (including occupied East Jerusalem), occupied Gaza Strip, southern Lebanon, the western parts of Jordan, and southern Syria including the occupied Golan Heights. 

This deep fear was the prime motive behind the Palestinian and Arab rejection of the U.N. GA proposed partition plan in 1947.

Famous Quotes

As WWI was ending, Ben-Gurion went on to draw a map of the "Jewish state" to be. This map clearly excluded Damascus (although it was part of Biblical 'Eretz Yisrael'), and limited the 'Jewish state's' future northern borders to 20 km south of the Syrian Capital. He rationalized this decision as follows:

'It is unthinkable that the Jewish state, in our day and age, could include the city of Damascus… This is a large Arab city, and one of the four centers of Islam. The Jewish community there is small. The Arabs will never allow Damascus, their pride, to come under Jewish control, and there can be no doubt that the English, even were it in their power, would agree to such a thing.' (Shabtai Teveth, p. 34)

If these are all sound reasons to exclude Damascus from being under Jewish control, then what makes Zionists think that occupied Jerusalem is any different? Although Damascus was never occupied by the Christian Crusaders, Jerusalem was occupied and pillaged, and to liberate it almost a million Muslim and Arab were martyred! Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when their "Promised Land" needed them during the Crusaders' genocide!

From the beginning, Zionists advocated a 'Jewish State' not just in Palestine, but also in Jordan, southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights as well. In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future 'Jewish state's' frontiers in details as follows:

'to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan' (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 87) Click here to view the 'Greater Israel' map that was submitted by the Zionists to the peace conference after WWI.

In the mid-1930s, Ben-Gurion met George Antonius (an advisor to al-Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was one of the few Palestinians whom Ben-Gurion had contacts with), and suggested that Palestinians should help the Zionists to expand the borders of their future 'Jewish state' to include areas under French control, such as southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. In response, Mr. Antonius burst laughing and answered:

'So, you propose that what England did not give you [as stated in the Balfour Declaration), you will get from us.' (Shabtai Teveth, p. 162)

According to Ben-Gurion, Antonius had complained about Zionists who 'want to bring to Palestine the largest number of Jews possible, without taking [the Palestinian] Arabs into consideration at all. With this type,' said Antonius, 'it is impossible to come to an understanding. They want a 100% Jewish state, and the [Palestinian] Arabs will remain in their shadow.' By the end of their talk, Antonius could, with reason, conclude that Ben-Gurion belonged precisely to this category of Zionists. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 163)

According to Ben-Gurion, Palestine was a 'matter of life and death' for the Jews. 'Even pogroms in Germany or Poland, and in Palestine, we prefer the pogroms here.' (Shabtai Teveth, p. 163)

On July 29, 1937, Ben-Gurion stated to the World Convention of Ihud Po'alei Tzion in Zurich that Maronite ruled Lebanon would serve the Christian minority better if it allied itself with the future 'Jewish state.' He said:

'Having Lebanon as a neighbor ensures the Jewish state of a faithful ally from the first day of its establishment. It is not, also, unavoidable that across the northern side of the Jewish state border in southern Lebanon the first possibility of our expansion will come up through agreement, in good will, with our neighbors who need us.' (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 88)

Ben-Gurion was enchanted that Jerusalem's neighboring Palestinian communities had been emptied. He stated to the Mapai Council on February 8, 1948:

'From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]… there are no [Palestinian] Arab. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change… What had happened in Jerusalem… is likely to happen in many parts of the country… in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country.' (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)

Ben-Gurion 'had a dream' to annex southern Lebanon to the 'Jewish state,' and to establish a Christian state north of the Litani River. At the beginning of the 1948 war, he stated:

'The Muslims rule of Lebanon is artificial and easily undermined. A Christian state ought to be set up whose southern borders would be Litani River. Then we'll form an alliance with it.' In the coming years he repeated this idea, and according to Moshe Sharett, Moshe Dayan (who was Israeli's chief of staff in the early 1950s) responded favorably to this idea and who according to Sharett said: 'In his [Dayan] view, all we need to do is to find a Christian Lebanese officer, perhaps no higher than a captain, and win him over or buy him with money, so that he would declare himself the savior of Maronite population. Then the Israel army would enter Lebanon, occupy the territory in question and establish a Christian government which would form an alliance with Israel.' Sharett himself considered this an 'awful' idea. (1949, The First Israelis, p. 10 & Righteous Victims, p. 497)

What's ironic that this 'awful' idea was precisely executed thirty later by Manahem Bagin and Ariel Sharon during the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon between 1982-2000.

In a letter Chaim Weizmann sent to the Palestine-British high Commissioner while the Peel Commission was convening in 1937, he wrote:

'We Shall spread in the whole country in the course of time ..... this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years.' (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 62)

In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the establishment of a Jewish state on parts of Palestine ONLY as an intermediary stage, he wrote: 

'[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.' (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107, One Palestine Complete, p. 403)

Ben-Gurion emphasized that the acceptance of the Peel Commission would not imply static borders for the future 'Jewish state.' In a letter Ben-Gurion sent to his son in 1937, he wrote: 

'No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning... Our possession is important not only for itself... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country.' (Righteous Victims, p. 138) 

In August 1937, the 20th Zionist Congress rejected the Peel Commission proposed partition plan because the area allotted to the 'Jewish state' was smaller than expected. On the other hand, the concept of partitioning Palestine into two states was accepted as a launching pad for future Zionist expansions, and to secure unlimited Jewish immigrations. In September 1938, Ben-Gurion explained why he advocated partitioning the country NOW, and to accept the Peel Commission's proposal: 

'The ONLY reason that we agreed to discuss the [Peel commission proposed] partition plan,' Ben-Gurion wrote Moshe Sharett, 'is mass immigration. Not in the future, and not according to abstract formula, but large immigration now.' (Shabtai Teveth, p. 184) And in October 1938, he wrote to his children that : 'I don't regard a state in part of Palestine as the final aim of Zionism, but as a mean toward that aim.' (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)

In September 1937, he stated to a group of American Jewish labor leaders in New York: 'the borders [of the Jewish state] will not be fixed for eternity.' (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)… Soon after the U.N. Proposed Partitioning Palestinian in November 1947, Ben-Gurion urged his party to accept the partition because it will never be final, 'not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements.' (Simha Flapan, p. 32) 

Similarly, even most left wing parties reaffirmed their commitment to the complete redemption of Biblical 'Eretz Yisrael,' the United Hebrew Labor (Ahdut Haavodah) stated: 'partition is the best or shortest way of realizing greater Zionism' and declared that its members would 'not cease to strive for the integrity of the homeland.' (Simha Flapan, p. 33)When Pinhas Rozen, who became Israel's first Israeli Justice, demanded that Israel's Declaration of Independence should cite the COUNTRY'S BORDERS, Ben-Gurion objected, and both exchanged the following points: ROZEN: 'There's the question of the borders, and it CANNOT BE IGNORED.' BEN-GURION: 'Anything is possible. If we decide here that there's to be no mention of borders, then we won't mention them. Nothing is a priori [imperative].' ROZEN: 'It's not a priori, but it is a legal issue.' BEN-GURION: 'The law is whatever people determine it to be.' (1949, The First Israelis, p. xviii)

Ben-Gurion clearly never believed in static borders, but dynamic ones as described in the Bible. He stated during a discussion with his aides: 'Before the founding of the state, on the eve of its creation, our main interests was self-defense. To a large extent, the creation of the state was an act of self-defense… Many think that we're still at the same stage. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders -- it's an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country's borders, so there's no real limit. Bo border is absolute. If it's a desert -- it could just as well be the other side. If it's sea, it could also be across the sea. The world has always been this way. Only the terms have changed. If they should find a way of reaching other stars, well then, perhaps the whole earth will no longer suffice.' (1949, The First Israelis, p. 6) 

It has been customary among all Zionists leaders to use the Bible to justify perpetrating WAR CRIMES. Regardless of the methods used to build the 'Jewish state,' the quote above is a classical example how the Bible is used to achieve political objectives. During the course of the 1948 war, Yigal Allon submitted a detailed plan to Ben-Gurion for the military conquest of the West Bank, arguing that the Jordan River would provide the best strategic border. He believed that a substantial part of the Palestinian population would flee east because of the military operations, he stated: 'Our offensive has to leave the way open for the army and the refugees to retreat. We shall easily find the reason or, to be more accurate, the pretexts, to justify our offensive, as we did up to now' (emphasis added). (Simha Flapan, p. 114) 

When Israel signed the armistice agreements with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, Ben-Gurion stated: 'The November 29[, 1947 U.N.] decision had given the Jewish state 14,920,000 dunums; now we have 20,662,000 dunums in our control. While the UN has not yet recognized our borders, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and Lebanon have done so.' (Simha Flapan, p. 49) 

In other words, Israel managed to expand its borders 38% more than the area allotted to the 'Jewish state' by 1947 UN GA partition plan. It should be noted that 60% of the Israelis soldiers were killed in action, were killed in offensive actions in the areas conquered beyond areas allotted by the UN to the 'Jewish state.' (Simha Flapan, p. 198-199).

One day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine, Menachem Begin, the commander of the Irgun and Israel's future Prime Minster between 1977-1983, proclaimed:

'The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.' (Iron Wall p. 25)

Yigal Allon wrote in an article published just before the outbreak of the 1967 war:

'In. . .a new war, we must avoid the historic mistake of the War of Independence [the 1948 war]. . . and MUST NOT cease fighting until we achieve total victory, the territorial fulfillment of the Land Of Israel.' (Righteous Victims, p. 321)

In 1934 Ze'ev Jabotinsky introduced for his youth movement followers the Betar Oath:

'I devote my life to the rebirth of the Jewish State, with a Jewish majority, on both sides of the Jordan.' (Israel: A History, p. 76) 

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story695.html

Kort maar krachtig, Raymond van den Boogaard, als journalist van een avondblad dat claimt een 'kwaliteitskrant' te zijn, heb jij een vakbondsbestuurder die opkwam voor de mensenrechten door de zionistische terreur tegen de Palestijnse burgerbevolking met klem af te wijzen, ten onrechte beticht van 'ideologisch antisemitisme.' Het was een kleine moeite geweest om jezelf, door het lezen van boeken of via internet, te informeren. Jouw beschuldiging was niet gebaseerd op enige kennis van zaken, maar op jouw 'chaotisch,' zoals je het zelf noemt, 'gevoelsleven' dat jij verwart met 'de echte werkelijkheid.' Raymond, ik vrees dat jij geen journalistiek bedrijft, maar ordinaire propaganda voor de gevestigde wanorde. Jouw ongeïnformeerdheid bewijst tevens hoe tendentieus de NRC al decennialang over Palestina en Israel bericht. Vandaag de dag ken jij, als journalist, nog steeds niet niet de meest simpele, elementaire feiten. Het fundamentele probleem hier is dat  jouw veronderstelling dat het 'gevoelsleven de echte werkelijkheid' is een waanbeeld is. Net als iemand bij die meent Napoleon te zijn leidt de gedachte dat perceptie de werkelijkheid is uiteindelijk tot krankzinnigheid. Jouw emotionele oprispingen zijn en blijven een weerspiegeling van de chaos in je hoofd. De 'heftige wereld van affecties, angsten, associaties, tegenspraken, verlangens en nachtmerries' vertegenwoordigt niet de historische 'werkelijkheid,' zoals ik hierboven aan de hand van de feiten heb aangetoond. Typerend  aan jouw reactie in de krant was de heftige verontwaardiging, oftewel, de geconditioneerde reflex van de kleinburger zodra één van zijn vooroordelen onderuit wordt gehaald. De feiten die vakbondsbestuurder Lot van Baaren aanvoerde gaven  jou niet de impuls om de historische achtergronden uit te zoeken. En dat nu is een veel betekenende en kenmerkende reflex van de westerse mainstream-journalistiek. Daarover volgende keer meer. 

Raymond van den Boogaard. De journalist als poseur, de combinatie van blazer, gekleurde stropdas en spijkerbroek,  de artistiek verantwoorde kleinburger. 

Israel Joins Forces With ISIS? Tel Aviv Bombs Syria for Sixth Time in 18 months

By 21st Century Wire

Global Research, January 20, 2015

21st Century Wire

Region: Middle East & North Africa

In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR?

 770 

  44  2 

  1381

The Syrian conflict continues to develop into a proxy war, pitting various foreign ‘national interests’ against one another, includingIran vs. Israel.

Israel launched its sixth airstrike inside Syria in the last 18 months, in what the local media are describing as a ‘targeted killing’ carried out  Sunday, killing at least 6 members of Hezbollah and al Quds Iranian Guard who were fighting ISIS, al Nusra and others in Syria. Among those killed in the missile attack was Jihad Mughniyeh, son of the former Hezbollah head, Imad Mughniyeh, who was assassinated by the IDF in Damascus in 2008.

Local media reported that a car with six men on board was en route from Lebanon to Syria when its occupants were killed by a US-made Israeli helicopter.

The Israel raid took place near the Syrian city of Al Quneitra (see map below) near the Golan Heights region. Israel has long sought to forcibly annex Syria’s Golan Heights area and past aggression by Israel forced the UN to intervene by passing UN Resolution 497 in 1981, and placing a UNIFIL international peacekeeping force there until recently, when they were driven out of their position by Jabhat al Nusra terrorist fighters who received strategic, financial and military backing from Israel’s IDF.

Back in Sept., Israel used its IDF Patriot Missile battery to provide air cover to ISIS in the Golan Heights, to shoot down a Syrian MIG21, allegedly because it “violated Israeli airspace”, but the Israeli move aided ISIS in its advance through the area.

In addition, according to Fars News Agency, also killed in the Israeli attack inside Syria was an IranianRevolutionary Guard commander, Mohammad-Ali Allahdadi, who was fighting alongside Damascus’s anti-ISIS coalition.

#Iran #IRGC Gen. Allahdadi martyred in tonight’s Israeli attack in #Syria along w/ #Hezbollah commanders pic.twitter.com/kSX0TUcQbo

— H.Soleimani (@MashreghNews_ir) January 18, 2015

Lebanon’s Shi’ite-oriented Hezbollah militia force is traditionally backed by Iran. In 2013, the group made it publicly known that they were fighting alongside the Syrian army in order to repel US and Saudi-backed Salafist terrorist groups and other western-backed foreign Islamist militants who have been gradually flooding into Syria since 2011, as part of the Washington-Riyadh-Tel Aviv Axis powers in their plan to topple the al Assad government in Damascus.

Hezbollah has vowed retaliation for Sunday’s Israeli attack. Previously, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah (image above) said how an Israeli attack in Syria is equivalent to an attack on Lebanon itself. It’s believed by Hezbollah that Sunday’s strike was the first of many intentional military provocations by Israel, who hope to draw out Hezbollah into a wider conflict, and thus helping ISIS, al Nusra and Washington’s “moderate rebel” FSA forces to over-run the Assad government and his forces in Syria.  It is doubtful however, that Hezbollah will respond any time soon, or open a new military front against Israel in South Lebanon, not least of all because of key domestic Lebanese ‘reconciliation’ talks currently underway across political and religious lines in the country.

Sunday’s attack raises more questions about Israel’s military role in the Syrian conflict, and why they would be providing air cover and official military support to ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups fighting against the Syrian Army and its allies.

As 21WIRE reported back in December after its previous Israeli attack in Syria, contrary to popular belief, Israel is very much involved in the destabilization of Syria, and providing direct support to ISISand other Islamic terrorist groups operating inside Syria.

Under direct pressure from the US, UN Security Council members do not appear to be willing to suggest sanctions, or hold Israel responsible in any way for any its repeated attacks against its neighbors, for fear of what misfortunes and diplomatic difficulties might befall them. As a result, Israel has been acting with impunity in the region. Since 2006, Israel has conducted several air strikes on Syria. Below is a description of those attacks:

Al Quneitra (18 January 2015) – Missile attack near the Golan Heights, killing 6 Hezbollah and Iranian anti-ISIS soldiers, including one al Quds commander.

Damascus and Dimas attack (7 December 2014) – Alleged Israeli airstrikes in Syria against a warehouse of advanced S-300 missiles, which were en route to Hezbollah in Lebanon.[25]Missile Strike at Golan Heights (23 September 2014) - IDF Patriot Missile battery shot down a Syrian MIG21, allegedly because it violated Israeli airspace. 
Beqaa Valley airstrike (24 February 2014) – Two airstrikes against an alleged Hezbollah missile base in Lebanon near the border with Syria.[21]2nd Latakia attack (26 January 2014) – Alleged Israeli airstrike against a Syrian warehouse of S-300 missiles.[20]Snawbar airstrike (30 October 2013) – Alleged Israeli airstrike at an air defense site in Snawbar.[19]Latakia explosion (5 July 2013) – Alleged Israeli airstrike on a Syrian depot containing Russian-made Yakhont anti-ship missiles.[18]Airstrikes on Syria (3-5 May 2013) – Airstrikes on Syria against alleged long-ranged weapons sent from Iran to Hezbollah.[16][17]Jamraya airstrike (30 January 2013) – Alleged Israeli airstrike on a Syrian convoy allegedly transporting weapons to Hezbollah.[14] Other sources stated the targeted site was a military research center in Jamraya responsible for developing biological and chemical weapons.[15]Operation Orchard (6 September 2007) Israeli airstrike on a ‘suspected’ nuclear reactor[4] in the Deir ez-Zor region[5] of Syria. The Israeli and U.S. governments imposed virtually total news blackouts immediately after the raid that held for seven months.[6]
Ain es Saheb airstrike (5 October 2003) - Israeli Air Force operation against an alleged Palestinian militant training camp in Ain es Saheb, Syria.

Additionally, Israel has attacked Lebanon repeatedly, most notably in 2006 when it slaughtered some 1,500 Lebanoese civilians during it’s indiscriminate bombing raids hitting residential areas and targeting ‘infrastructure’ in neighboring Lebanon:

Operation Just Reward (12 July – 14 August 2006) - Israeli counterattack which began with air force bombing of Hezbollah positions in Southern Lebanon. Israel attacked Lebanon in this bloody siege which ended with 1,191 Lebanese dead in total (including combatants and foreign civilians in Lebanon) with over 4,000 injured. The IDF lost only 121 soldiers, and Israeli civilians said to have died were 43.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-joins-forces-with-isis-tel-aviv-bombs-syria-for-sixth-time-in-18-months/5425799