Connecting the dots -- this is a war about WATER

[DELUSIONAL]

In the last 24 hours -- separate posts on DU have contained the information for us to connect the dots.

This is a war about WATER.

Last night someone posted about Tucker Carlson asking why the Israeli side of the boarder was GREEN and the Lebanon side was BROWN. The Lebanese Ambassador said it was because Israel had diverted Lebanon's water long ago. This trigger my memory -- WATER issues were forecast as THE major reason for war in this century.

I remembered reading an article about Israel threatening Lebanon with War about diversion of water.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2249599.stm

Sharon had in fact threatened Lebanon with war if water from the Hasbani River was diverted. That means water originating in Lebanon was not to be use by Lebanon on pain of war by Israel.

0 September, 2002, 17:39 GMT 18:39 UK
Israel warns of war over water

Then someone else posts an article about Israel's war plans were set LONG before the soldiers were capture. In fact they had been planning for this war for some time.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP

The KGO liberal, late night talk show hosts were covering this topic last night as well.

Today a thread with this link was posted -- and within the link there was a link to a NEOCON website -- with a paper on WATER -- and the Middle east.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG21Ak01.html

half way into the article we find this KEY paragraph:

All according to plan
The world has seen this movie before. The seed for understanding the New Middle East war was sown 10 years ago, in 1996. Everything keeps pointing back to the infamous paper "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", prepared by neo-cons such as Richard Perle, David and Meyrav Wurmser and Douglas Feith for Likud hardliner Benyamin Netanyahu.

And here is the cherry on the ice cream -- the Neocon link

http://www.iasps.org/nbn/nbn70a.htm

with this short passage (stay tuned for a Neocon list)

Thus, by targeting Israel's most vulnerable strategic asset, its dwindling water supplies, Syria has been able to position itself to profoundly influence Israel's bargaining posture over borders and security. This, more than any other factor, may be the reason why Israel has not committed itself to a written agreement regarding a redeployment to the June 4, 1967 line. To do so would be to signal an irrevocable surrender of both the Jordan River and the Kinneret. But renewed rhetoric in Israel seems to suggest that policy-makers are seriously considering just such a move. This would be a win-win situation for Syria. At best, Mr. Assad would not only score a major victory by gaining back the Golan, but also dramatically alter the water equation, and by extension the balance of power, between Israel and Syria. At the very least, the water issue could drive a wedge between Israel and Turkey.

As policy planners struggle to revive the Syrian-Israeli dialogue once again, resolving the topic of water remains the most difficult task for the two countries. It is also the most important. The way the water issue plays out will have major repercussions not only for Israel, but the region as a whole. The ensconcement of Syria on the Golan would allow Damascus not only to virtually dictate terms to Jerusalem, but exert influence over Amman and create a rift in the Israeli-Turkish military partnership as well. Given the signals made by Israel's continued efforts to reopen talks with Syria, Jerusalem has not yet understood the geopolitical significance of water to its relations with its neighbors. As a result, Mr. Assad has been given an incentive to continue to apply the appropriate pressure, diplomatic as well as military to achieve his goals.

Paul Michael Wihbey is a fellow at the Washington office of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Ilan Berman is a research associate at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

The plan for this current Israeli war is here

www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

and now the list of neocons

Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:"

Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University

----------

I believe we now have the real motive for this war -- WATER.

Although I must say that the Hizbolla make great villains -- they are nasty looking people and they do really nasty things. What is to like --oh they do some good social work.

Ignore the magician -- try to see what we are not supposed to see.

STOP fighting among ourselves -- this is what the Neocons want. They know if they use the Israel victim card -- and play the emotional propaganda that we will turn on each other.

Right now the Israel people have bought into the skillful manipulation -- and the nasty evil Hizbolla has responded with missiles.

The real motive is WATER. And the real villain -- the NEOCONS.

We are being conned by cons.