But feck it, here we go...
Let's take some of the main claims in the article and track them down.
"State Department diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks have shown that in 2006, five years before the conflict in Syria manifested, the government of Israel had hatched a plan to overthrow the Assad government by engineering sectarian strife in the country, creating paranoia within the highest-ranks of the Syrian government, and isolating Syria from its strongest regional ally, Iran. Israel then passed this plan along to the United States."
Tellingly, there is no citation or link for this claim. The link above goes to another article from the same website (a common practice in this article), which discusses the 2006 cables without linking to them. I'll assume, however, that they're referring to
this cable which I think you've mentioned before in this thread and which does not mention Israel once. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's impossible to tell given the lack of any links.
"One email, forwarded by Clinton to her advisor Jacob Sullivan, argues that Israel is convinced that Iran would lose “its only ally” in the region were Assad’s government to collapse."
The email is posted, and reveals a lot more than that brief excerpt above, including discussions with Israeli officials who obviously prefer the continuance of the stability provided by Assad's rule to the prospect of "growing success of the rebel forces of the Free Syrian Army (FSA)." All of which reflects what I heard all over Israel when I lived there in 2011 - 2012 - there was no unified thinking on the future of Syria in Israel, the place was very much split between those who saw an opportunity in the Syrian war, and those who feared what would happen after Assad (hey, kind of like the Cafe!).
The next email posted is a standard diplomatic report (they all are in fact), anonymously authored, and containing no proof at all that Israel has orchestrated anything in Syria, just an argument that the fall of Assad might benefit Israel (in other words, the type of article that gets published in
Foreign Policy or similar publications every so often).
Then the "aiding the rebels" section. All links in the first part lead to a WSJ article which is behind a paywall, so I can't read it. For what it's worth, a while back I posted this very detailed article on the same topic by someone who knows his Syrian rebel groups inside-out -
Israel's Relations with the Syrian Rebels
"in June, Israel attacked several Syrian military positions after claiming a stray mortar had landed within the boundaries of the Golan Heights, part of Syria that has long been occupied by Israel."
This claim eventually leads to
this article which contains no links, but cites the same WSJ article I can't read.
"In June of last year, Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major General Herzi Halevi, openly stated that Israel does not want to see Daesh defeated in Syria"
This claim, and all results of googling "Herzi Halevi Herzliya ISIS" eventually lead back to
this article on al-Masdar, the website of a prominent supporter of the Syrian government who I'm sure you follow on Twitter. It contains no citations or links, even though Halevi's remarks are available to
watch in full on youtube. I'll admit I haven't watched all 50 minutes, but I'll be surprised if you can find evidence for al-Masdar's assertion.
"Israeli officials had regularly noted that Daesh conquering the whole of Syria would be preferable to the survival of the Assad government."
The link eventually leads to a Ynet article in which one Israeli official says he prefers ISIS to Iran. Which is a bit different.
"the conflict in Syria has proven beneficial to this end, allowing Israel to send even more settlers into the Golan, an estimated 100,000 over five years."
The link is to another article on the same site which claims this has been proposed by one minority faction in the government, with no evidence that anything has ever come of it.
"Israel is largely interested in gaining control over the Golan for economic reasons, owing to the occupied territory’s oil reserves"
Israel has controlled the Golan since 1967, and annexed it in 1981. You only have to visit the Golan to understand why they won't be giving it back to Syria unless forced (the clue is 'Heights').
"Under the cover of the Syrian conflict, the Israeli branch of an American oil company — whose investors include Dick Cheney, Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch — has been drilling exploratory wells throughout the region, as the Heights’ uncertain territorial status prevents Israel from financially exploiting the resource."
Ah, now I see where we're going with this. A proper cast of villains.
"Israel has even offered, per the Galant plan, to “rebuild” Syria with billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars in exchange for the Golan Heights"
The link eventually leads to an
Arabic article posted on the pan-Arab
al-Araby. A
Ynet article on the Galant plan makes no mention of any plan along the lines described above.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For what it's worth, I can well believe that at times Israel has facilitated the advances of rebel forces, including Nusra, on the Golan. I believe that every single actor in the Syria and Iraq conflicts, with the sole exception of the Iraqi government, has at times been happy to use ISIS and/or Nusra against other enemies deemed more threatening at that particular moment (just as every single Middle Eastern regime has at various times over the decades attempted to utilize jihadi groups for their own interests). I would say that, on balance, the Turkish government has probably been the most guilty of this, but the Americans, SDF/YPG, Assad, Russians, and other assorted militias have also done it at various moments. That's the nature of these types of wars (check out the history of the Lebanese Civil War for a truly bizarre merry-go-round of alliances).
I'm also happy to accept that the Israelis are interested in oil on the Golan, why wouldn't they be? That doesn't mean they orchestrated the entire Syrian Civil War in order to get their hands on it, it just means they see the current situation as favorable to any claims they make in the future.
