Netanyahu heads to US to tell Obama ‘truth’ about Iran (That’s his version of course)

Netanyahu heads to US to tell Obama ‘truth’ about Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet with Barack Obama to discuss the “smokescreen” the Iranian president used to fool Western powers. The White House meeting will take place before Netanyahu addresses the UN General Assembly on Tuesday.

“I intend to tell the truth in the face of the sweet talk and  charm offensive of Iran,” Netanyahu said before  boarding the plane to New York.

“Telling the truth at this time is essential for world peace  and security and, of course, for Israel’s security,” AFP  cites him as saying.

After Iranian President Hassan Rouhani addressed the United Nations  General Assembly last week, Netanyahu called the speech   “cynical” and “full of hypocrisy,” saying it was  aimed at fooling the Western powers while Iran continues  advancing towards a nuclear weapons capability

Following the historic conversation between the leaders of Iran  and US on Friday – the first such talk in more than three decades  – Netanyahu instructed his ministers and senior officials to keep  silent and not comment on the development.

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani addresses the 68th United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters in New York, September 24, 2013. (Reuters / Ray Stubblebine)Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani addresses the 68th United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters in New York, September 24, 2013. (Reuters / Ray Stubblebine)

http://t.co/HLCkf2k1Ng

Following the phone call, Iranian hard-liners hurled shoes and eggs at  Rouhani’s car chanting “Death to America” and “Death to  Israel” as he arrived in Tehran.

Netanyahu will speak with Obama on Monday during a two-hour long  meeting in Washington, where the two leaders are also expected to  discuss Syria and Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

On Tuesday, the Israeli PM will be the last speaker to address  the 68th UN General Assembly in New York.

WHAT IS GOOD FOR PALESTINE IS GOOD FOR ALL

Syria is not alone in this endeavor to do as pleases Syria , Syria is part of the axis of the Resistance and this victory over the world order has been achieved by this axis who joint efforts on the ground , this victory was that of Syria and that of Hizbullah and of Iran also and Russia also could use this victory positively to promote itself in the region . And this victory is that of Palestine above all and this the direction and this the central cause , not only the for Arabs and Muslims but it is universally speaking so . This war is for Palestine and Palestine will remain the Qibla for all committed people . Those committed to religion or to their national feeling or to their feeling for humanity in general . If one does not give priority to the Palestinian cause then one has lost his compass . What is good for Palestine and Palestinians is good for all . Syria has paid a price but Syria does not gain anything in providing a cover for what is happening against Gaza and against HAMAS precisely on behalf of the Egyptian Army who is by no way a National Army and has stopped being so since the shameful agreements that have recognized Israel and normalized with it .

The Egyptian Army -until further notice- is still coordinating with Israelis and still cooperating with Israelis and instead of fighting the Israeli entity they are fighting the MB -who are a natural constituent of the Egyptian Society – and rallying against them and tightening the siege on Gaza in a way that is worse than what Mubarak did .There is no logic in betting on this army before this army goes over its choices and its ties with Israel. The wisest path to follow is the path of Hizbullah who has never severed his ties with the military faction of HAMAS , the leaders of HAMAS should be exposed for what they did and replaced but we should still bet on the Palestinian armed Resistance of HAMAS as Hizbullah is doing and bring it back to the resistance bosom .Hizbullah has acted previously inspired by wisdom and is still acting this way and everyone has everything to gain from trusting the wisdom of the Resistance and follow the light of the Resistance in these times where darkness prevails .

On Blood Rituals

tabooneorevivalist Study finds 7 cases of herpes transmitted by Jewish penis sucking ritual

By Gilad Atzmon

Haaretz reported today that a couple of weeks ago, New York City Councilman David G. Greenfield introduced a bill that would bar the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene from requiring informed consent for metzitzah b’peh.

Metzitzah b’peh (blood sucking) is a Jewish blood ritual where a circumciser (mohel), “sucks out blood from a baby’s penis after circumcision.”

The N.Y. health department has linked several infant deaths to Metzitzah b’peh. Needless to say that the American health authorities’ concerns are more than reasonable. However, not many people are familiar with the history of the political and medical discussion over that particular Jewish blood ritual.

In Medicine and The German Jews, John M. Ephron elaborates on the evolvement of the opposition to Jewish blood rituals in Germany.

“Jewish circumcision was the subject of a wide-ranging debate in nineteenth-century Germany.Circumcision had long been regarded as the most distinctive and separatist of all Jewish rituals, and the discourse surrounding it went to the heart of the ‘willingness’ of the Jews to fully participate in the ‘act’ of being German. The ritual was interpreted as a signal of the Jews’ refusal to rid themselves of their differences, imprinting on their own male bodies, as an aboriginal would his tribal markings, an ineradicable expression of national identity. “

“Critics of ritual circumcision were particularly hostile to the act of metsitsah. For many Jews, primarily those who had joined the German middle class and had come to share the culture and aesthetic sensibilities of that group, metsitsah appeared to be an atavistic, sexually deviant act. Part of the traditional circumcision ceremony, the practice of metsitsah was widely condemned throughout the nineteenth century by medical and lay authorities, Jews and Gentiles alike. Charging that the practice promoted the spread of a host of sexual and infectious diseases, the arguments made against the practice were not confined to Western Europe but made their way east as well. “

I guess that as far as the Jews are concerned, the take home message here is plain and simple. When, the ‘Goyim’ start to complain about Jewish blood rituals is when they are willing to admit to themselves that something is distinctively different and wrong with Jewish culture.

Such a transition is indeed a sign of growing resentment towards Jewish culture and politics. In America this transition takes place at a time when the wide public gathers that it is Israel and the Jewish lobby that are relentlessly pushing the west into wars. George Soros, a liberal Zionist who funds the pro-Israeli lobby group J-Street and the rabid Zionist NGO Human Rights Watch is also funding the so-called American progressive network and many Palestinian NGOs.  Mondoweiss,  the leading Jewish anti-Zionist outlet banned any discussion to do with Jewish culture or more precisely, the Jewishness of the Jewish State and its Lobby (1)

I am convinced that the wide public is not really concerned with the rituals Jews perform on their new-born male babies.  Yet, complaining about Jewish blood rituals should be grasped as a clear expression of growing fatigue with Jewish politics and power. People out there are saying, “Enough is enough.”

I really don’t think that I can save the situation, but I still see a duty to air my concerns. I believe that Jews had better beware and be alarmed. If Jewish history reveals anything, it warns that Jews are clearly getting themselves into trouble once again. If Jewish history teaches us anything, it also predicts that my call will be dismissed by Jews.  And this is exactly what the Jewish tragedy is all about.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics, available on Amazon.com  & Amazon.co.uk

(1) “From here on out, the Mondoweiss comment section will no longer serve as a forum to pillory Jewish culture and religion as the driving factors in Israeli and US policy.” (http://mondoweiss.net/)

Lavrov: Insurgents Have Chemical Weapons

Syria1 300x221 The Chemical Weapon Accusations against Syria are Overshadowing the Insurgent Retreat

US Labeling Terrorists

by Stephen Lendman
It’s no secret. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov affirmed what he said many times before. Russia has clear evidence.

It proves Western-enlisted death squads have CWs. It proves they use them.
On Saturday, Russia’s Channel One interviewed Lavrov. He said Moscow intercepted a phone call between two insurgents. They discussed using chemical weapons.

Russia informed Washington and other anti-Assad governments. It called on them “to make sure that their ‘charges’ kept their hands off any chemical weapons or their components, to say nothing of using them.”

According to Lavrov:
“We are certain that militants have more than once attempted such provocations.”

“Therefore, the direct sponsors of opposition forces who offer them support must also see to it that they give up on further provocations.”

Syria must play the lead role in its own security.

“The main idea is to let OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) experts play the first fiddle, while the UN plays a supporting role by providing additional personnel if needed and, first and foremost, by protecting watchdogs that are to inspect Syrian chemical arms depots as listed by the country’s government.”

“Of course, we are still to agree on the details of this plan.”

“In this sense, the UN Security Council’s resolution will entitle the UN secretary general to come forth with his recommendations during consultations with the OPCW’s chief.”

Assad and opposition forces are obligated to observe Security Council provisions to eliminate all chemical weapons in Syria.

UN member states must not let insurgents with chemical weapons use their territories.

Security Council Resolution 2118 “stresses chemical weapons must not fall into the hands of non-governmental entities, which the opposition is,” said Lavrov.

“It also emphasizes that all UN member states, primarily Syria’s neighbors, must take comprehensive measures to prevent the use of their territories for the provision of the opposition with chemical weapons and their components,” he added.

Insurgents used chemical weapons numerous times. Clear evidence proves it. Previous articles discussed it in detail.

It bears repeating. It’s vital to do. It’s to point fingers the right way. It’s to assign blame where it belongs. It’s to set the record straight. It’s to absolve Assad of crimes he didn’t commit.

On March 19, insurgents attacked Khan-al Assal with chemical toxins. It’s a suburban Aleppo town. Syrian forces control it.

Anti-Assad forces fired a homemade rocket. Shell fragments proved it wasn’t factory made. It contained RDX nitroamine. It wasn’t industrial grade. It’s not what Syria has. Insurgents produced it.

A previous article quoted Syria’s UN envoy Bashar Jaafari saying:
“The Syrian authorities have discovered yesterday in the city of Banias 281 barrels filled with dangerous, hazardous chemical materials.”

Amounts found were “capable of destroying a whole city, if not the whole country,” he added.
Toxic substances include 79 barrels of polyethylene glycol (PEG), 67 barrels of mono ethylene glycol, 25 barrels of mono ethanol (or ethanolamine), 68 barrels of diethanolamine (DEA), and 42 barrels of triethanolamine (TEA).

Jaafari said chemicals found were “in a secret storage (area) controlled and monitored by the armed terrorist groups.”

On August 23, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) headlined “Two phone calls affirm the use of chemical weapons in Homs by terrorists,” saying:
“A phone call between a terrorist affiliated to the so-called ‘Shuhada al-Bayada Battalion’ in Homs and his boss who was called Adulbasit from Saudi Arabia uncovered that terrorists used the chemical weapons in Deir Ballba in Homs countryside.”

“During a phone call broadcast on the Syrian TV Channel, the terrorist said that his group which comprises 200 terrorists escaped from al-Bayadah to al-Daar al-Kabera through a tunnel, adding that they needed to buy weapons to attack the City of Homs.”

“The Saudi financier who was present in Cairo asked the Syrian terrorists about details on his group and the way they will receive the money, admitting his support to terrorists in Daraa and Damascus Countryside, in turn the Syria terrorist told him that one of the achievements of his ‘Battalion’ was the use of chemical weapons in Deir Ballba.”

“In the same context, another phone call reveled the cooperation between tow terrorist groups to bring two bottles of Sarin Gas from Barzeh neighborhood in Damascus.”
Washington, key NATO partners, Israel and rogue Arab states are waging war on Syria. Weapons and munitions are supplied. So are toxic agents.

Previous articles explained in detail. Information discussed bears repeating. Pentagon contractors are involved. They provide insurgents with CW training.

Syrian forces seized a warehouse. It contained barrels marked “Made in KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).” Protective masks were found. So were drugs used when inhaling chemicals.

No evidence links Syrian forces to CW use any time throughout months of conflict. Plenty proves insurgents used sarin and other toxic agents.

They did numerous times. They’ve been caught red-handed. Initial reports were buried and ignored. Assad’s wrongfully blamed.

He had nothing to do with attacking Ghouta. Western-enlisted death squads bear full responsibility.
In March, insurgents fired homemade rockets containing CL 17. It’s a form of chlorine. It induces vomiting, fainting, suffocation and seizures.

In late May, Turkish police arrested 12 suspected Al Nusra fighters. They were seized in southern Turkey. They were caught red-handed with a two gm cylinder of sarin nerve gas.

Last December, an insurgent video showed them testing chemical weapons on lab rabbits. Threats to use them against Assad loyalists followed.

 FSA showcases its chemical weapons lab

Lab equipment and chemical containers were shown. Some bore the Turkish chemical company Tekkim name.

An Arabic text wall poster read, “The Almighty Wind Brigade (Kateebat A Reeh Al Sarsar).”
A man was shown mixing chemicals in a beaker. It emits gas. Rabbits in a glass box had convulsions. They collapsed and died.

A previous article discussed a no longer accessible January 29, 2013 UK Daily Mail report headlined “US ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime,’ ” saying:
“Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.”

“A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme ‘approved by Washington’ is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.”

Another previous article cited Mint Press News headlining “Exclusive: Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack,” saying:
“Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.”

Insurgents had “tube-like” weapons. Others were in a “huge gas bottle.”

The same article quoted UN human rights investigator Carla del Ponte. Last May, she said:
“According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas.”

“We still have to deepen our investigation, verify and confirm (the findings) through new witness testimony, but according to what we have established so far, it is at the moment opponents of the regime who are using sarin gas.”

Russia knows all of the above and more. So do other UN member states. It bears repeating. Extremist anti-Assad elements alone used chemical weapons.

They’ve done so numerous times. Clear evidence proves it. They bear full responsibility for attacking Ghouta. Blaming Assad doesn’t wash.

Syria’s fully committed to eliminating its CWs. On September 28, Lebanon’s al-Manar TV interviewed Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi.

He welcomed Security Council Resolution 2118. He said Damascus fully intends to comply with all its provisions. It’ll work cooperatively with OPCW inspectors.

“Syria’s decision on joining the CWC came from the state’s commitment to protect its people through avoiding a US-western military aggression and to prevent more killing of innocents and protecting the establishments and national and economic infrastructure,” he said.

Damascus is going all out to resolve conflict conditions diplomatically, he stressed. It’ll participate in Geneva II. It’ll do so with no preconditions.

It’ll engage all involved nations in constructive dialogue. It’ll do so with “all national people, inside and outside Syria, who believe that the solution to the crisis is a national solution far from any foreign interference or violation of the national sovereignty, but we will not talk with terrorists,” he added.
He condemned Saudi Arabia for continuing to supply funding, weapons, and political support. Washington, Britain, France, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan and Israeli do the same thing.

Obama calls the shots. Syria is his war. He launched it. He wants Assad toppled. Security Council Resolution 2118 changes nothing. An uneasy calm may not last long.

It’s a convenient illusion. It ignores continued Syrian army/insurgent clashes. It turns a blind eye to dozens more daily deaths. One bloody day follows others.

Believing Syria’s conflict can be resolved diplomatically requires blind faith. Escalated conflict looms. Pretexts will be invented to do so.

Cruise missile diplomacy may follow. Bombs away awaits Obama’s order. He wants another imperial trophy. He’s hell bent on getting it.

Syria may end up as ravaged, destroyed, dysfunctional, anarchical, and dystopian as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya before he’s through. Rogue leaders operate that way. Obama’s by far the worst.

PRESIDENT ASSAD’S INTERVIEW WITH RAI 24 TV, SEPTEMBER 29, 2013

PRESIDENT ASSAD’S INTERVIEW WITH RAI 24 TV, SEPTEMBER 29, 2013

Posted on September 29, 2013 by Alexandra Valiente
President al-Assad: We focus today on getting rid of terrorists and their ideology…We can make Syria much better than before the crisis

Sep 29, 2013

Damascus, (SANA)- President Bashar al-Assad has given an interview to the Italian Rai News 24 TV channel in which he stressed Syria’s commitment to the international agreement on the prohibition of chemical weapons and its determination to go ahead with the political solution and halting violence.
The following is the full text of the interview:
We comply with every treaty we sign
Rai News: Mr. President, thanks for having us here. It’s a very important moment, because the UN Security Council just approved with unanimity a resolution asking Syria to eliminate completely its chemical weapons. Are you going to comply with this?
President al-Assad: Actually, we joined the international agreement for preventing the use and acquirement of chemical weapons before that resolution came to light. The main part of the Russian initiative is based on our will to do so. So, it’s not the resolution. Actually, it’s about our will. Of course, we have the will, because in 2003 we had a proposal in the United Nations Security Council, to get rid of those weapons in the Middle East, to have a chemical weapons free zone in the Middle East. So, of course we have to comply; this is our history: to comply with every treaty we sign.
Rai News: So, with no limit to any extent?
President al-Assad: According to every chapter in the agreement. We don’t have any reservations. That’s why we decided to join the agreement.
Rai News: How do you think you will organize this kind of dismantling, which is very complicated?
President al-Assad: This question should be directed to the organization itself. Of course our role is to offer the data and to facilitate their procedures, which is available so far. But I think it’s about the technical side or aspect of the implementation, about how to reach those places, especially when you have terrorists who could put any obstacle, and about how to dismantle and get rid of those materials.
Rai News: Let me just speculate on this. It means you’re going to help them and protect them. Because now security is a very important issue here in Syria.
President al-Assad: Of course. That’s self-evident, yes.
Rai News: Let’s go forward, Mr. President, trying to understand what’s going on in Syria in the next few days, weeks and months, because now the attack which was very close a few weeks ago looks to be a little more distant. How are you going to work in this time? What is your personal roadmap?
President al-Assad: I’m sorry, for what?
Rai News: For political activities. I mean, how do you think you’re going to use this time?
President al-Assad: Since the beginning of the crisis, we said political activity or solution, whatever you call it, is a very important part of the crisis. But when you have terrorism, you cannot expect the political solution to solve everything. In spite of that, you have to continue the political action, but there’s no process yet. It’s about the Syrians meeting around the table, discussing the political system that they want, the future of Syria, and whatever they agree upon, you’ll have a referendum in order to have the endorsement of the Syrian people regarding whatever part of the future of Syria, whether it’s the constitution, or laws, or whatever. That’s what we’ve been doing since the beginning of the crisis, and this is the same action that we’re going to continue with in the meantime.
We discuss with every party of opposition but not armed groups
Rai News: We’ll go back later to the beginning of the crisis, but let us stay for a second on this. It means you’re going to discuss with the opposition as well? Even with the armed opposition?
President al-Assad: No, when they are armed you don’t call them opposition, you call them terrorists. Opposition is a political entity, is a political program, is a political vision; this is opposition. If you have arms and destroy and kill and assassinate, this is not opposition. This is what you call terrorism all over the world and in every other country. So, we can discuss with every party in the opposition. Regarding the militants, if they give up their arms, we’ll be ready to discuss with them anything like any other citizen.
Rai News: So, we arrive close to Geneva 2, the peace talks, because Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the UN, said that it’s very likely in November there will be a second Geneva meeting. Are you planning to attend it personally?
President al-Assad: That depends on the framework of the Geneva meeting. So far, that conference is not clear: what kind of conference, who’s going to attend, what the criteria are for this conference. So, we have to be ready as government, but we cannot decide who’s going to head the delegation until we have, let’s say, the framework, the clear framework and the criteria.
Rai News: So, let me just ask you: which kind of framework would convince you to go there?
President al-Assad: As I said, any political party could attend that conference, but we cannot discuss, for example, al-Qaeda and its offshoots and organizations that are affiliated to al-Qaeda, for example, terrorists. We cannot negotiate with the people who ask for foreign intervention and military intervention in Syria.
Rai News: May I just name Qatar and Saudi Arabia?
President al-Assad: Let me be frank with you; they are client states, so I’m talking about states now. If you want to talk about states, they are client states; their master is the United States. We all know that. So, if the United States is attending, this is the main partner, and the others are accessories. If you want to talk about Syrian parties, regardless of their names, I’m talking about their behavior during the crisis. That’s what we can discuss – their behavior.
Rai News: Since the situation on the ground is very complicated, could you also accept the idea of some international forces, like interposition on the ground, to try to stabilize in a way the situation?
President al-Assad: It doesn’t work, because we’re not talking about two countries fighting each other, like, for example, Syria and Israel, where you have a frontline, a clear frontline, where you can have the United Nations forces on both sides of the borders or the frontier, let’s say, or the armistice line. It’s completely different. You are talking about gangs; they could exist everywhere in Syria, within any city, where you don’t have a frontier or clear lines. So, even if you want to suppose that you can accept that idea – which is not acceptable for us – but if you want to accept it, where can you position those troops? No-one can draw a map. You need a clear map. There is no clear map. There are gangs coming from everywhere, and they are terrorists who should be fought, not isolated from the Syrian troops.
We support any country that would like to help the Syrians
Rai News:We were talking about Geneva 2, and I was thinking about Europe and the role of Italy in this kind of process. Do you see any role for Italy in this?
President al-Assad: Again, let me be very bold here, very blunt. If we want to discuss the role of Italy, we should see it in the light of the European role. Is Italy independent from the European role? If not, who’s leading the European role? And, we have to discuss the relation between the European role and the American. Is Europe independent from the American policies today? I heard from many European officials that they are convinced about what we are saying, but they cannot announce it. This is not the first time, not only during this crisis. So, any role should be looked at in the light of two things: the credibility of that role, and second, the relation between the individual or the country or the government, let’s say, with the different parties. Now, our reality today is that most of the European countries adopted the American, let’s say, practice in dealing with different countries since George Bush came to his position more than ten years ago. When they have a problem or disagreement with any other country, they cut off all kinds of relations. So, if you want to play a role, how can you play a role where you don’t have relations? How can you build credibility when you don’t have relations? Regarding the credibility, how can you talk about the credibility of any European country now when they talk about humanitarian aid and at the same time they establish the worst embargo we’ve ever seen since the existence of Syria after the independence? Many things have to be discussed before asking for a role. We welcome any role. We support any country that would like to help the Syrians in their endeavor, but we cannot just ask for a role without having the foundation of that role. So, to be frank, most of the European countries today, they don’t have the ability to play that role because they don’t have the different factors that could make them succeed and could make them efficient and effective in playing that role.
We trust the Iranians and they, like the Syrians and many other countries, don’t trust the Americans
Rai News: But things look to change quite quickly these days, because just this phone call between President Obama and Iranian President Rouhani, and so it looks like the balance in the region in some way is changing. Isn’t it going to affect in some way what is happening in Syria?
President al-Assad: I think it’s going to affect positively for many reasons. First of all, Iran is our ally. Second, because we trust the Iranians. Third, because the Iranians, like the Syrians, like many countries in the world, don’t trust the Americans, and I think many of the American allies don’t trust the American administrations. So, for the Iranians to move closer to the Americans is not just a naïve move; it’s a well-studied step that’s based on the experience of the Iranians with the United States since the revolution in 1979. But if the Americans are honest about this rapprochement, I think the results will be positive regarding the different issues, not only the Syrian crisis, including every problem in the region.
Rai News: You know that in the day of the crisis and I mentioned the attack was so close. An important action was taken by Papa Francesco, Pope Francis, against the war. And now, speaking to the Christian minority here, they are all very scared. What is going to be your attitude towards minorities like Christians in the next few years?
The crisis is not only a regional issue but should be international issue especially for Italy and the Vatican
President al-Assad: Syria is a melting pot. It existed like this, like it is today because it is a melting pot with multifarious cultures for centuries, before Christianity and after Christianity, before Islam and after Islam. If you have any change, dramatic change, in the demographic and social fabric of the Syrian society, you’re going to have a big problem in the future regarding the future of Syria. I don’t know what kind of problem, because it’s more complicated than anyone would think, and that will affect the other countries in the region. So, Syria is a secular country and the Syrian society is a secular society. Secular means to deal with every citizen, regardless of their religion, sect and ethnicity. So, I think technically these minorities in Syria, especially Christians, in light of what is happening recently – burning churches, attacking Christian villages, expelling Christians form their houses and homes – in light of this, dealing with this crisis is not a Syrian issue, it’s not only a regional issue, it should be an international issue, especially for Italy and for the Vatican.
Syrian Army didn’t use chemical weapons at all, we have every evidence that the armed groups have used them
Rai News: So, Mr. President, these have been very complicated weeks. The escalation has started with the infamous 21st August attack. Can we go back to that allegation about the chemical attack; which is your version, because you were speaking about having different evidence. UN inspectors are here working, can you help us understanding your version about this?
President al-Assad: Let me tell in you in brief. First, let’s start by saying the Syrian Army didn’t use it at all. It never arranged to use chemical weapons during the crisis, and we have every evidence that the gangs have used this.
Now, why the Syrian Army didn’t use it? Logically and realistically, you don’t use it when you’re in advancement. The army was advancing. Why to use it? You didn’t use it for two and a half years while you had many difficult situations in different areas in Syria, you had much more terrorists facing you in other places more than Damascus. Why didn’t we use it? Why only in that place?
Second, the story now, or the American narrative; we invited the delegation to come to Syria, which is responsible for investigating the use of chemical weapons, before that incident, and the day they arrived, the second day, the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. Is that plausible? You cannot believe this story. Why, when we invited the delegation to come in March, why did the Americans put obstacles, and why did they accept that recently before the incident, and when they arrived, the attack happened? You cannot use it in a city where you can have tens of thousands of casualties including the army. The most important thing is that nobody verified the veracity of the videos and the photos, no-one, because in many places, the same pictures of the same children were used in different photos in different places, and you can find those pictures on the internet, they’ve been circulating on the internet.
On the other side, we have complete evidence, like the materials, containers that the terrorists used, we have the confessions of some of the terrorists that conveyed chemical materials from neighboring countries, and you have the indication that the interest of whoever committed this crime wasn’t the Syrian Army; it was the terrorists. So, that’s the whole story.
Rai News:Is there even the slightest chance or possibility that someone inside your circle or the army did it against your permission, against you, and then maybe see him defect in a few months? It’s a very complicated crisis, so we’re allowed to use speculations.
President al-Assad: It’s a weapon of mass destruction, it’s chemical. It’s like if you say that somebody in a nuclear country wanted to use nuclear weapons without the authority of his master. You cannot believe this. This is a very naïve story. This could be a children’s story. It’s not a grenade ;you put it in your pocket and throw it on everyone. The process of using the chemical weapons if you have a war with any enemy and if you want to use it is very complicated, it’s under strict procedure because it’s complicated technically first of all to activate the material itself. This is first. Second, not a single unit in the Syrian Army has chemical weapons anyway; you have specialized units, and if you want to use it, these specialized units should join the army in order to use the chemical weapons. So, again, this is a children’s narrative.
We dealt with the situation from the beginning according to the constitution
Rai News: So, since we’re going back in time, let’s go to the beginning of the crisis. At the time, you acted in a tough way against any sign of opposition. Do you have any kind of regret of the way everything began?
President al-Assad: We have to define the word “tough” because we dealt with the situation according to the constitution. It’s like, if you say, the Americans sent the army to Los Angeles in 1995. Do you call it tough, or do you call it that they sent the army to fight the rebels? So, according to the constitution we should have fought the terrorists, because from the very first week, we had many victims from the army and the police, from the very first few weeks. So, that’s normal, what we did, according to the constitution. This is the job of the government. If you talk about mistakes committed on the ground that could happen anywhere in the world. In the UK a few years ago, they shot a Brazilian guy by mistake, so that could happen anywhere. So, policy is different from the practice in many places in the world.
Rai News: But, just remaining on the political field, don’t you think that you had the chance to do something more at the time? Like doing something more, maybe change, even politicians sometimes can admit some mistakes.
President al-Assad: Even if you want to look at your mistakes when you do it, and every human will do mistakes every day, that’s normal, but how can you judge your mistake? After the end of the event, not during the event. So, we are still in the middle of the crisis. You can judge that at the end of the crisis. This is where we can revise our action, this is where the people can criticize us on, let’s say, objective and methodical basis, not in an arbitrary way.
Rai News: Did you ever think to leave the power for the sake of your country? Did you ever consider the chance to leave your country just if the exchange was peace and stability for your people?
President al-Assad: It depends on the “if.” If my quitting of my position would make the situation better, the answer would be very simply, without reluctance, yes. But there is the other question; would the situation be better? So, for me as president, so far, I have to be in my position because when you have a storm, you don’t give up your position. You don’t quit your position and leave your country in the middle of the storm. Your mission is to take your country to the shore, not to abandon the ship and the Syrian people.
Rai News: What would be the scenario in which you could decide that it’s the right way for your ship to go to the shore, and then you decide to do something else?
I should obey whatever the Syrian people want
President al-Assad: The first part, two things. As I said earlier, the political dialogue is very important to discuss the future of Syria and the political system. The second one is to stop the violence by stopping the smuggling and sending the terrorist form outside Syria, stopping the financial support, stopping sending them armaments and every logistical support, because if we don’t succeed here, we cannot in the political part of solving the problem. Second, after solving this problem, regarding me, my position, the only way is the ballot box, because this is where the Syrian people can tell whoever they want. And for me, I should obey whatever the Syrian people want. There’s no other way in any country. I mean, it’s not the decision of any group in Syria; it’s the decision of every Syrian citizen.
Rai News: Are you going to be in the elections of 2014?
President al-Assad: Before the elections right away, if I feel that the Syrian people want me to be in that position, I will run. If not, I will not.
Bad ideologies invaded the region, including Syria
Rai News: Mr. President, I do remember the beginning of your presidency, and you were looked to as a symbol of hope for Syria, because everybody knew that you knew the world, and you came here to give it a more modern and open society. Young people, intellectuals were looking at you in this way. Then, something happened in between. Do you think there’s a chance you could do something so dramatically different to be seen again in that position, and not in the one in which you’re seen in the very last days?
President al-Assad: You have to talk about the internal factors and the external factors, because you are part of a very complicated region in the world, so we’ll be affected, and there’s daily interaction with our periphery. The internal factor which is that when you talk about reform, it’s not the reform of the president or the government; the government and the president should lead the reform, because it’s about the whole society, because it’s a matter of culture. It’s not only laws and constitution. The laws and constitution are means for change, but the real change happens by the people themselves. So, according to our reality, when you talk about thousands of years of civilization, you are talking about mores, and customs, and traditions, and ethos, and folkways, and different things that are related to every society, and our society is very complicated because of this multifarious culture that we’ve had. So, it was moving forward. You cannot say that we didn’t say anything. Some people say that it was false, some people say that it was too slow; this is subjective. Each one sees it in his own way. But in the end, no-one can say that we are in our position, because we moved forward, could be slowly, but surely. This is the first part.
Second, you have to talk about external obstacles. When I became president, two months later, the Intifada in Palestine started that influenced every country in the Arab world. The peace process actually had failed just a few months before I became president, and there was a stalemate. Third, eleventh of September happened, and we had to pay the price, one of the countries that had to pay the price. They invaded Afghanistan; we were against. They invaded Iraq; we were against. And after 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, Syria had to pay the price, and there was an embargo by the Europeans and the West, and so on. There was only an artificial period of conciliation, let’s say between Syria – which could be not the very precise word – but kind of rapprochement between Syria and the West and especially Europeans between 2008 and 2011. Why artificial? Because it was under the supervision of the Americans; it wasn’t genuine, because they weren’t independent. And now we have the crisis. When we talk about reform, especially when we talk about dramatic reform, you need a different atmosphere. You have to be comfortable economically, politically and ideologically. Don’t forget in that regard one of the external and internal factors at the same time is the invasion of the bad ideologies to the region, including Syria, and I mean the ideology of al-Qaeda that invaded many communities in our region, including part of the Syrian society. You cannot talk about reform and democracy while the ideologies are single-minded ideologies that don’t accept any other one, because democracy, real democracy, is about accepting the others. Start by accepting the other, first of all, especially in a diverse society. So, I can say that we are still having the same will to move forward in that regard according to our reality. So, the scope of the reform will be limited by our reality.
The only option that’s left for us is to defend our country
Rai News: Very last question; if now the major threat looks to be over or a little lessened, what would you tell your people in terms of promise and pattern?
President al-Assad: I think the only thing that I can say now is one option that’s left for us; which is to defend our country. So, first of all, we have to focus on getting rid of the terrorists, their terrorism and their ideology. Second, even if we get over this crisis, we have so many things to manage after the crisis, the leftover of this crisis, especially the ideological, the psychological and the social consequences on thissociety, so we have a lot of work. But, I can say with confidence that we can make Syria much better than before the crisis.
Rai News: Even with reforms?
President al-Assad: Yeah, of course. We need the reform. Without reform, we cannot. The reform is a very part of what I’m talking about. Actually, it’s the major axis of making Syria better, that’s for sure, but doesn’t mean to be the hope in that regard of foreign countries or foreign people; I could be the hope of the Syrians, not any other one.
Rai News: I wish you all the best. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you for your time and for hosting us here.
President al-Assad: Thank you for coming to Syria.

Iran shows truth is winning out

Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:36PM GMT
The saying goes that a week is a long time in politics – meaning that big changes can surprisingly occur in a short period.

This week, at the 68th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations was one such watershed event.

The engine for this dramatic change was Iran’s diplomatic thrust. Iranian President Dr. Hassan Rouhani delivered a speech to the assembly that enthralled those willing to listen while leaving detractors reeling from their own inadequacy.

Rouhani’s address was a paragon of rational argument that reinforced humane values of respect and equality.

Yet he laid blame firmly on the causes and protagonists of conflict, whether in Palestine, Iraq or Syria. In sum, the Iranian president rejected militarism and warmongering as an archaic blunt and immoral instrument, and he offered a hopeful way forward from conflict based unequivocally on equality and respect.

“Militarism and the recourse to violent and military means to subjugate others are failed examples of the perpetuation of old ways in new circumstances,” said Rouhani.

The bottom-line was that he successfully conveyed Iran is a peaceful nation that threatens no one, and is willing to join with others in creating a peaceful world, including the removal of all weapons of mass destruction.

American and Israeli warmongers were left grappling vainly for detractions.

“Iran has come here to cheat the world,” said an Israeli official, whose grudging sounded paranoid and fatuous.

The trouble for these American and Israeli warmongers and hate-filled psychopath politicians is that we now live in a world of instant global communications where ordinary people can hear the words of others without them being warped and poisoned.

Even the American mainstream media had to give the Iranian leader a fair hearing because, with many alternative sources of information to serve as verification, to not give a fair hearing would expose such media as disreputable agents of disinformation. With the traditional Western media’s credibility at an all-time low among the public, they can’t afford to lose any more respect.

But it was Rouhani’s personal style of calm reason and erudition that won the day. Any one with an open mind had to be impressed by his cogent appeal for peace and a better world free of conflict.

“People all over the world are tired of war, violence and extremism. They hope for a change in the status quo,” he said, adding, “In recent years, a dominant voice has been repeatedly heard: ‘The military option is on the table.’ Against the backdrop of this illegal and ineffective contention, let me say loud and clear that ‘peace is within reach.’”

The only way to counter such reasonable politics is to resort to calumny and propaganda. But Rouhani had that covered too when he warned against those who create “imaginary enemies” and the fictitious “Iranian threat.”

The case for Iran to be treated with respect, without aggression, and to be allowed to avail of its national rights, including peaceful nuclear technology, resonates with world public opinion. People, and the American people in particular, are fed up with baseless aggression whether in the form of militarism abroad or, significantly, economic austerity at home. The significance is that people have made the structural connection between these two aberrations. People are realizing that their personal suffering is related to the way the rest of the world is suffering. It is the common condition of the bankrupt capitalist system and all its predations.

The days when the public could be misled by a warmongering elite are rapidly waning. People can see through the self-serving lies and fabrications and are intolerant of this obnoxious mindset. The people want a totally new arrangement of doing things, to overturn an economy based on exploitation and oppression and warmongering, to be replaced by a more ethical, efficient and equitable system, one that is democratic, not despotic.

In this past week, there was a profound sense of common ground for change, where Iran’s appeal was in synchronicity with international public opinion.

The contrast between Rouhani’s speech to the UN and US President Barack Obama’s was telling. The Iranian leader’s sentiments and aspirations seemed on the crest of a wave – the wider feelings of ordinary people all over the planet – while Obama sounded like someone left behind, thrashing around in a bygone era.

Rouhani listened to the other intently; whereas Obama cleared off from the assembly hall.

Obama’s speech was full of American self-importance and self-justification. It was a subjective parody of history and conflict in which the US is always portrayed as the “good guy.” Unlike Rouhani, Obama did not present supporting facts and objective rationale. It was a propaganda stunt to cover US militarism and illegal wars with a veneer of legitimacy.

Out of Obama’s mouth came not an appeal from the heart for absolute human equality and peace, but rather hackneyed propaganda to excuse US aggression and superiority towards the rest of the world.

“We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people,” said Obama with earnest fakery that is so obvious now it is pathetic.

“Wherever possible, we will build the [terrorist] capacity of our partners, [dis] respect the sovereignty of nations, and work to address [promote] the root causes of terror. But when it’s necessary to defend the United States against [imaginary] terrorist attack, we will take direct action [mass murder].” (Words/letters in brackets added.)

All that and more from Obama is so anachronistic, old school now. What American people and the rest of the world realize more than ever is that the US under its bankrupt economic system does not have international relations. It has predatory, hegemonic instincts that fuel relentless massive violence – all for the enrichment of its banking and corporate elite.

And, what’s more, people realize the inextricable link between the US elite’s aggression abroad and its economic and police-state aggression at home.

The US president declared to the UN delegates, “The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force [state terrorism], to secure our [ruling elite’s] core interests [obscene capitalist profit].” (Words/letters in brackets added.)

In the past, such American blandishments and bluster may have been possible – but not any more. People everywhere across the globe can read what’s inside the parenthesis when official America speaks now.

And the people know the latter is a twisted mouthpiece to disguise destructive interests.

The appeal for reason by Iran is very much chiming with the people of the world. The American elite and their warmongering allies in Britain, France and Israel, among others, know that they are up against a powerful wave of reason and noble sentiment. That is why Obama had to abruptly swerve from the US war plan towards Syria and why the warmonger instincts have been tempered to try the diplomatic route.

US military power is still a dangerous force, especially at this historical juncture of economic collapse. War is therefore always a danger, and diplomacy, peace and justice are far from assured. But the people of Iran are finding a new ally – the rest of the world.

That is because the enemy is one and the same, destructive elitist system, and because the truth is winning out.

Jack Berenstein: Zionists and Their Lies

Jack Bernstein was a Jewish critic of Zionism. Here he exposes the Zionist tactics to silence criticism.

 

%d bloggers like this: