What Can Follow America’s Withdrawal From Syria

December 20, 2018

by Ghassan Kadi for The Saker Blog

Just before Trump announced that American troops are to leave Syria “immediately”, many compatriots, friends and analysts were wondering what could be the next event that might change the course of future events in northern and eastern Syria. The first reaction to the news of Trump ordering his troops to leave Syria took many by surprise. That said, we have to wait and see if Trump does not wake up tomorrow changing his mind. The reason behind Trump’s decision to withdraw is not very important and as far as this article is concerned, it is irrelevant. If he wants to believe that he is leaving victoriously, that’s fine, for as long as he does leave. That said, the sudden resignation of Mattis clearly indicates that the former top gun does not see it with the same spectacles. Either way, the withdrawal, if it happens, may end up to be a long and protracted process that could take weeks, months and perhaps years, and the manner in which it happens opens the doors for many possibilities and contingencies.

Before Trump’s decision, there were two serious nagging and unresolved problems in Syria standing in the way of ending the war and the commencement of rebuilding the war-ravaged nation; and they were the ongoing presence of the terrorists in Idlib and the presence of American troops in the North East.

Idlib has been the sink hole of Syria, a place where all terrorists ended up. In any major battles, all the way from the battle of Al-Qusayr in 2013 to the most recent battle of Daraa in 2018, all of which ended up with terrorists defeat, negotiations ended up with militants leaving the areas in secure buses and settling in Idlib. No one really knows how many of them are there at the present moment because the overall figure includes those who were bunkered there from the beginning. The estimates run from as low as 10,000 to a high 100,000. The truth is that we don’t know. The figure could well be outside those estimates; but they have to be huge nonetheless.

Regardless of the number, they are the only terrorists left who answer to Erdogan and/or who can be manipulated by him. If they don’t, they either have to fight to death or leave. But given that all of their supply lines come from Turkey, they don’t have much of a choice but to kowtow to the Sultan. The Sultan is using his loyal “troops” as a trump card for two reasons; first of all to continue to have a de-facto military presence in government-controlled areas in Syria, and secondly and most importantly perhaps, is because he regards the terrorists as his Muslim brothers, and it is his “duty” to protect them.

This was why when Russia and Syria were making preparations to go inside Idlib and clean it up, he told them that he could achieve the same objective with negotiations and that they can leave Idlib for him to deal with. A few months later, Russia and Syria are still waiting for him to come true to his word.

So what is Erdogan exactly trying to do in northern Syria and why are Putin and Assad putting up with him?

Before Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria, it was clear that Putin understands Erdogan too well. He knows that Erdogan has an Achilles Heel, two of them in fact; one in each foot. In many previous articles, I have reiterated that Erdogan is incurably both an Islamist and a Turkish nationalist; even though the ideologies are in total contradiction with each other. And even though he is cunning, calculating and prepared to wait for the right moment to act, when it comes to either nationalism or religion, he regresses into a programmed robot that is simply unable to think and act rationally; and Putin has been trying to use this weakness of Erdogan to serve his own objectives.

Erdogan wants to protect Al-Nusra in Idlib, and this is why Putin convinced Assad to leave the Idlib carrot in the hands of Erdogan, not necessarily because he believes that Erdogan will indeed deal with it in the manner that he should, but simply to present to him that Russia regards him like a credible partner.

On the other hand, the simmering tension between Ankara and Washington over the Kurdish issue has been coming to a head for a long time. Ever since America pledged support to Syrian Kurds, Erdogan, in blunt terms, has been clearly saying to his American “allies” that they must choose between Turkey and the Kurds. He has been making serious threats that he will attack Manbij and clean it up from Kurdish militants even if American troops do not leave.

Erdogan’s nationalist Achilles heel has left him in serious discord with his biggest NATO ally.

Given that the nationalist aspect of Erdogan is prepared to risk falling out with NATO and even fighting American troops in Syria just to prevent the creation of an independent Kurdish state south of his border, he was putting himself in the position of the former Afghani Mujahideen who were fighting their own war, and at the same time, serving another purpose for another group. With this stance, Erdogan presented that he was prepared to fight with America at any level, even militarily; because to him, the Kurdish issue was a redline that he was not prepared to see crossed.

For a while, a fair while in fact, Russia and Syria stood back and watched how the American-Turkish impasse morphed. It seemed that any potential fight would not only serve to prevent the creation of an independent Kurdish state, but would also end up with American withdrawal from Syria, and thus serving the objectives of both Syria and Russia.

And even though in theory it is the role and duty of Syria and her army to liberate the North-East from American presence, this course of action did not only risk a major confrontation with NATO and possible widespread bombing all over the country, but this option will also risk a direct confrontation between America and Russia on Syrian soil.

This was the only reason why Russia and Syria seemed prepared to put the resolution of the Idlib dilemma on hold. This is the only rational reason as to why they did not coerce Erdogan to rush into any quick action there before the problem of American presence has been resolved.

Knowingly or inadvertently, the American withdrawal from Syria, if it happens, will take a huge bargaining chip away from the hand of Erdogan in as far as his relationship with Russia is concerned. Erdogan will no longer be able to say to Russia that if Russia wants him to deal with America’s presence, then Russia must accept the deal with Idlib too.

In short and simple terms, the American withdrawal, if it happens, will take the decision of what happens in Idlib out of Erdogan’s hands.

The above sounds good, good for Syria, but the final outcome of this will depend on a number of factors, the most important of which is who is going to replace the American troops and how soon.

If America leaves behind a mercenary army as some speculate, fighting it will be logistically easier in the sense that it will not open the door for direct confrontation with United States army.

Depending on the pattern of withdrawal, the void generated by the retreating American troops can either be filled by the legal national Syrian Arab Army or by an invading Turkish army. But this depends on the location as well as the time table of withdrawal. If America for example leaves Deir Ezzor now, which is in the east and a couple of hundred kilometers south of Turkey’s border, the void will automatically be filled by the Syrian Army. However, if America leaves a northerly position such as Manbij, Turkey will move in before the Syrian Army will have a chance to do so. And such a scenario can spell more problems for Syria.

The problem here is more of a humanitarian nature than territorial, because sooner or later, Turkey will have to leave Syria. That said, if Turkish troops control any Syrian land, even for a short time, they will most likely declare open season on Syrian Kurds, and given Turkish history in dealing with such situations, this can be brutal.

On the other hand, if Erdogan tries to inflict a Kurdish massacre, then his Idlib carrot will turn into a stick lashing his own hide. For years, he had managed to juggle his contradictions of being a nationalist and an Islamist, but he will finally have to choose between his two alter egos. His nationalist ambition of annihilating Kurdish resistance in Syria can endanger his Muslim brothers in Idlib. His split-personality dilemma is finally coming to a head.

Would the man who was prepared to fight America if America supported a Kurdish state be also prepared to fight Russia if Russia attacked his Islamist brothers in Idlib?

Ideally, the best scenario possible for Syria and Russia, a resolution that will uphold Syria’s sovereignty and integrity all the while avert any Kurdish bloodshed, is for Syria and Russia to immediately fill in any gap created by retreating American forces. Erdogan must be kept out of Syria, and once his hands cannot reach Syrian Kurds any longer, he will no longer be able to have any say in Idlib.

Related Videos

Related articles

Advertisements

سورية الموحّدة بيضة قبّان الشرق الجديد

ديسمبر 22, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– لا ينتبه كثيرون أن للجغرافيا السياسية قوانين ومعادلات، كما للفيزياء، تنتج قواها، كرفض الفراغ وقوة الجاذبية وعلاقة الضرورة السببية بين الفعل وردّ الفعل، وبيضة القبان التي تحفظ التوازنات وتتيح قراءتها وكل تغيير طفيف في مكانها يعبر عن تحولات كبرى في أمكنة أخرى، فيقعون بالتسطيح عندما يحصرون قراءتهم ببُعد واحد صحيح، لكنه غير كاف، وهو تناسب درجات امتلاك مصادر القوة الظاهرة بين المتواجهين في ساحات النزال السياسي أو العسكري، فيبدو الأقوى نظرياً ينهزم أمام مَن يفترض أنه الأضعف، فتتشوش العقول وتتوه التحليلات في البحث عن مؤامرة أو قطبة مخفية أو صفقة تحت الطاولة لصعوبة تصديق الأمر السهل وهو أن ثمّة هزيمة وقعت وفرضت معادلاتها.

– في حال الانسحاب الأميركي من سورية الكثير من هذا، فكثيرون توقّعوا سرعة التقدّم التركي لملء الفراغ في العملية العسكرية المرتقبة واعتبروا أن التفاهم التركي الأميركي وراء القرار ليفاجئهم الرئيس التركي بإعلان تأجيل العملية العسكرية و»لشهور»، معلوم أنه سيجري خلالها الكثير مما يغير المشهد وربما، أو الأرجح ما سيتكفل بنسف العملية، وكثيرون اعتبروا الانسحاب إعلان فراغ يدفع اللاعبين للتذابح، ويطلق دينامية فوضى سياسية وأمنية، فبدا العكس أن البحث بالانخراط السياسي مع الدولة السورية يبدأ مع تبليغ فحوى القرار لحلفاء واشنطن قبل إعلانه، ويتواصل بعد الإعلان، من زيارة الرئيس السوداني إلى زيارات مرتقبة للرئيس العراقي وأمير قطر وحديث علني في تونس عن تحضير لدعوة الرئيس السوري إلى القمة العربية الدورية التي ستنعقد قبل المئة اليوم المقررة لإنجاز الانسحاب الأميركي.

– ليست القضية انتصار سورية على أميركا، فالذي تواجه خلال سنوات كان المشروع السوري والمشروع الأميركي. المشروع السوري القائم على ثلاثة أركان تحدّث عنها الرئيس السوري مراراً وفي فترات متفاوتة من الحرب على سورية. الركن الأول هو أن سورية الموحّدة بشرعيتها الدستورية وجيشها القوي ضرورة دولية إقليمية تفوق أهمية القياس التقليدي للمصالح بالقرب والبعد عن السياسات التي تعتمدها الدولة السورية. وكل تصرف نابع من الاستخفاف بهذه الحقيقة ويؤدي للعبث بوحدة سورية وشرعيتها الدستورية وقوة جيشها ستكون نتائجه خسائر أكبر من تلك المترتبة على الخصومة السياسية مع الدولة السورية، بالنسبة لخصومها، وأكبر من الأرباح المتوقعة من أي من حلفائها مقارنة بعائدات وهم الإمساك بأجزاء من سورية على حساب هذه المعادلة لسورية الموحّدة بشرعيتها الدستورية وجيشها القوي.

– الركن الثاني للمشروع السوري هو النداء الأصلي للرئيس السوري بقيام نظام إقليمي أسماه بمنظومة دول البحار الخمسة، أي إجماع الدول الفاعلة الواقعة ما بين بحار قزوين والخليج والأحمر والمتوسط والأسود على التنسيق الاقتصادي والأمني لضمان الحقوق والمصالح المشروعة للجميع بمن فيهم أميركا، كتدفق الطاقة ومحاربة الإرهاب، لملء الفراغ الاستراتيجي الناجم عن تراجع القوة الأميركية بعد حربي العراق وأفغانستان، وأنّ كل سعي لبديل عن هذا النظام سيُطلق الفوضى والإرهاب ويزعزع الاستقرار، لكنّه لن يحقق مصالح أحد، والثلاثي الإقليمي الذي خاطبه الرئيس السوري كان روسيا وتركيا وإيران من جهة والثلاثي العربي من جهة مقابلة كان السعودية ومصر والعراق، وكل الحروب وفظاعاتها بهدف إنكار هذه الحقيقة وتفاديها لن تفعل سوى أنها تعيد التذكير بهذا النظام الإقليمي كضرورة وحاجة. وماذا عساها تركيا تفعل بعد تورطها في الحرب على سورية سوى تكريس هذه الحقيقة عبر انخراطها في مسار أستانة؟ ومثلها سيفعل الآخرون.

– الركن الثالث للمشروع السوري هو أن الإرهاب غير قابل للاحتواء والتوظيف، ومحاربته قضية وطنية وإنسانية وأخلاقية، لكنها أيضاً مصلحة جامعة، وكل استثمار في الإرهاب بنية إلحاق الأذى بالخصوم سرعان ما يتحوّل انتحاراً جماعياً، يُصيب المتلاعبين بمفهوم الإرهاب والحرب عليه ومعه، ومهما قيل في قرار الانسحاب الأميركي من سورية أو في القلق الأوروبي من تدفق العائدين من الإرهابيين إلى ساحات أمنها، فهي بنهاية المطاف تعبير عن الاكتشاف المتأخر لصحة هذه المعادلة، التي يصفها أحد الأمنيين الفرنسيين الكبار بقوله، لقد توهّمنا أن وجود خمسة آلاف متطرّف في فرنسا يعني حسابياً أن التكفل بإيصالهم إلى سورية سيعني التخلّص منهم، وإدارة بعضهم، لكننا اكتشفنا أن إطلاق التعبئة لإرسالهم وحدها تكفّلت بجعل الرقم خمسين ألفاً ينتشرون في مسام المجتمع الفرنسي، وأنه كلما استعرت نيران الحرب في سورية زاد العدد في فرنسا، لقد لعبنا مع الشيطان وأطلقنا الأفاعي التي تصعب إعادتها إلى صندوق باندورا.

– مقابل المشروع السوري قام المشروع الأميركي على قرار تكسير الدولة السورية وشرعيتها وتحطيم جيشها، لأنها في خندق سياسي مخالف، وفي هذا السبيل فتح الباب للفوضى والتقسيم والحروب الأهلية، واستثمر في تنمية التطرف والإرهاب واستجلب مئات الآلاف من الإرهابيين، وفتح حدود سورية للألعاب الإقليمية، وتوهم معادلات مفبركة لنظام إقليمي بركن واحد اسمه العثمانية الجديدة محوره حكم الأخوان المسلمين ومركزه أنقرة، ثم نظام إقليمي محوره ثنائية إسرائيلية سعودية عنوانه صفقة القرن والعداء لإيران، وكلها مشاريع لا تحاكي حقائق الجغرافيا السياسية للمنطقة. وكانت النتيجة هي التساقط المتلاحق للرهانات الأميركية في كل مناحي هذا المشروع والهرولة نحو دمشق اليوم كما الانسحاب الأميركي، كما الحديث عن رفع الفيتوات على إعادة الإعمار وشروط العملية السياسية بقيادة الدولة السورية، تعبيرات عن انتصار المشروع السوري، حيث سورية الموحدة بشرعيتها الدستورية وجيشها القوي وحربها على الإرهاب بيضة قبان الشرق الجديد، تكفّ الشرور عن خصومها في العالم، وتحقق الأرباح لحلفائها في المنطقة والعالم.

Related videos

Related Articles

Riding the Tiger: Zionism, israel (apartheid state) and the Far Right

Source

18.12.2018
Much has been made in recent years by defenders of Israel of the purported estrangement of the political Left from the cause of Zionism. This perceived anti-Israelism, borne out of the Leftist view that Israel is a fundamentally unjust and inequitable colonial-settler state, is argued to extend further from an ideological animus to one of racial hostility; a state of affairs which has been expressed as “the Left’s Jewish problem”. One of the key manifestations of this hostility is claimed to be a putative alliance between the Left and political Islam. Jewish and Israeli critics have written perplexedly about a union between the “illiberal Left and political Islam”, and other times of the Left’s “hypocritical embrace of Islamism”. However, these critics are somewhat muted and even silent about the links between pro-Zionist Jewish organisations and individuals with extremists of the political Far Right.
Further, Israel has developed alliances and arrangements with several European parties of the Far-Right, a phenomenon that is redolent of the agreements reached between some within the Zionist movement and the totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy prior to World War Two. These contemporary alliances with nationalist movements, many of which are overtly racially conscious and in most instances, avowedly anti-Muslim, raise three key problems.
First, is that such collaborations carry with them the risk of legitimising racist attitudes and philosophies.
Secondly, it brings into sharp focus troublesome parallels between political Zionism and white nationalist aspirations, and, thirdly, it can be argued that they contribute to facilitating the creation of a climate of racial and religious intolerance, which will in the long run produce negative, unintended consequences for Jewry.
“In working for Palestine, I would even ally myself with the devil.”
– Vladimir Jabotinsky
The rise of nationalist sentiment has historically being a thing of concern for Jewish diaspora communities. The inevitable emphasis by nationalist movements on having a shared cultural identity and what often tended towards an inevitable insistence on racial exclusivity, left Jews vulnerable to being designated as an alien people upon whom fear, hostility and contempt could be focused.
For instance, during the interwar years of the 20th century, many European countries experienced a surge in the numbers of political parties espousing nationalistic ideologies which were defined by anti-Semitism. The anti-Republican alliance prior to and during the Spanish Civil War was marked to a degree by anti-Jewish attitudes. And while Spain had a relatively small Jewish population, the larger Jewish communities in eastern Europe were victimised during a period of increased influence of Fascist parties such as the Iron Guard in Romania, the Arrow Cross Party in Hungary, as well as the ultra-nationalist parties which emerged in Poland after the era of the philo-Semitic Marshal Pilsudski. In Fascist Italy, the promulgation of the leggi razziali in 1938 followed the template set by the Nuremberg Laws three years earlier by Nazi Germany. These developments were, of course, part of the prelude that led to the catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War Two.
Today, nationalism and white identitarian-thinking is on the rise in both Europe and North America. Among the pot-pourri of political parties, pressure groups and media outlets are those designated as the ‘alt-right’ who espouse philosophies such as biological determinism, and who pronounce political agendas that aim to create white-only ethno-states. They are usually anti-immigration and invariably anti-Muslim. Some are avowedly anti-Jewish. Yet, while they are universally judged to fit into the far-Right of the political spectrum, there are significant links between many of these movements and Jewish individuals, Jewish organisations and the Jewish state of Israel.
While the record of historical and contemporary alliances and accommodations with extremist movements may ultimately be construed as a survival strategy for a people who have long perceived themselves as being constantly imperilled by the threat of periodic outbursts by other peoples who seek their destruction, these connections require scrutiny, not least because of the moral contradictions which they reveal.
What is more, the rationalising by some of the efficacy of such accommodations as the prudent exercise of pragmatism may come to be seen in hindsight as short-sightedness in circumstances where links can be made with situations where Jews as individuals and communities are harmed. For instance, if Jewish individuals or organisations co-operate with or otherwise give succour to white nationalist organisations on the basis of each having a shared hatred for Islam and its adherents, to what degree should there be a residual responsibility for acts directed at Jews in a climate of fomented hate?
They may also raise an uncomfortable analysis of a coherence in philosophies between the ideologies of groups deemed to be objectionable and that of the state which much of organised Jewry is pledged to preserve and protect. After all, it was Richard Spencer, an intellectual leader of the ‘alt-right’ who proclaimed his “great admiration” for Israel’s recently passed nation-state law. “Jews”, Spencer tweeted, “are, once again, at the vanguard, rethinking politics and sovereignty for the future, showing a path forward for Europeans.”
The implications of Spencer’s praise are not lost to the objective bystander. They speak of an ideological affinity which he has consistently alluded to. It was Spencer who while informing an audience at the University of Florida in October 2017 of the states from the past to the present which had influenced his thinking, offered a conclusion that “the most important and perhaps most revolutionary ethno-state, the one that I turn to for guidance, even though I might not always agree with its foreign policy decisions (is) the Jewish state of Israel.”
Spencer’s views about Israel and its state ideology were echoed by the far-Right Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, who in praising the passage of Israel’s nation-state law as “fantastic” and an “example to us all”, called on his countrymen to “define our own nation-state, our indigenous culture, our language and flag, define who and what we are and make it dominant by law”.
Many were simultaneously perplexed and repulsed by the presence of Israeli flags at rallies of Pegida, the German nationalist movement which is stridently anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant. This is a phenomenon repeated at rallies by offshoot groups in countries such as Britain and Australia where the flag of Israel has been waved alongside banners identifying with neo-Nazism and neo-Fascism. The blue hexagram and blue stripes of Israel have also been flown at demonstrations and meetings of the far-Right English Defence League (EDL), which for a period of time had a Jewish Division led by Jewish individuals respectively of Brazilian and Canadian origin.
In Germany, some members of the Jewish community offer vociferous support to the far-Right Alternative for Germany (AfD) Party. And as was the case with the EDL, it formed its own Jewish wing in October of this year headed by a female Jewish physician of Uzbek origin. The aims of the Jewish component is revealing.They are against the immigration of “Muslim males with anti-Semitic views”, and consider the AfD to be “defenders” of German Jews and Israel.
Some months ago, it was revealed that the Middle East Forum (MEF), a hardline pro-Israel think-tank had helped fund the legal expenses of Tommy Robinson, a former leader of the EDL, as well as the the costs of organising protests which had taken place in support of him while he was in jail for contempt of court.
The MEF issued a statement explaining that it had helped Robinson “in his moment of danger” in “three main ways”. These were firstly, by using “monies to fund his legal defence”, secondly, by “bringing foreign pressure on the UK government to ensure Mr. Robinson’s safety and eventual release”, and thirdly, by “organising and funding” a rally held on June 9th, 2018.
The MEF along with the David Horowitz Freedom Centre, which describes itself as a “right-wing Conservative foundation”, were both recently involved in attempts to organise a speaking tour of the United States by Robinson. Robinson is also employed by Rebel Media, which is run by Ezra Levant, a Jewish-Canadian who is often at pains to emphasise the boundaries between the sort of civic nationalism he purportedly represents and the race-based nationalism of white identitarians. Yet, what these Israel-supporting entities have in common alongside individuals such as Debbie Schlussel, Laura Loomer and Melanie Phillips is a raison detre to stoke up anti-Muslim sentiment. It is an objective that is consistent with an overarching aim of political Zionism.
Stirring up anti-Muslim sentiment has been an avowed goal of Israel for many decades. The rationale behind this strategy is based on the desire to reframe the conflict with the Palestinian people and the wider Arab world from one between a colonising power and a people with genuine grievances about being dispossessed of their land, to that of a conflict between two antithetical philosophies with Israel purportedly reflecting the Western value system that is ‘democratic’ and ‘tolerant’, and the majority Muslim Arabs reflecting ‘tyranny’ and ‘intolerance’.
In other words, it is intended to create a climate in which the injustice of dispossessing the Palestinians of a substantial portion of land upon which they lived for centuries is overshadowed. A corollary of this is to legitimise the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from what land they have left in the militarily occupied West Bank, which many Jews, regardless of their ideological inclinations or level of religious observance believe is the God-given land of what they refer to as Judea and Samaria.
Israel’s relations with far-Right governments in Europe is based on harnessing the fears and misgivings that they have about Islam to the disadvantage of Palestinian interests. Thus it is that Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s current prime minister, sees the Right-wing governments of Poland and Hungary as key allies among the member states of the European Union who are useful when it comes to blocking policies and initiatives which are favourable to the Palestinians.
It is an alliance which Israel has strenuously sought to preserve despite misgivings over the overt anti-Semitism that plays a part in the policies followed by the ruling parties of both countries, as well as the historical legacy of eastern Europe as the repository of the most virulent forms of anti-Semitism.
Indeed, the Christian nationalist anti-Semitism of Poland’s Law and Justice Party and Hungary’s Fidesz Party, both purveyors of what has been termed “Zionist anti-Semitism”, forms the basis of a consensus ad idem with the Jewish state. The mentality of Zionist anti-Semites, whose ranks have included the Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Breivik, is to consider Israel to be the first line of defence against the Muslim hordes who in their thinking are primed to expand into Europe.
Netanyahu has praised Hungary for its abstention from the United Nations General Assembly’s overwhelming rejection of the United States’ recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It had, along with the Czech Republic and Romania, blocked an EU statement criticising America’s decision to move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
But such alliances with anti-Semitic, far-Right and other extremist states and organisations are not new to adherents to the cause of Zionism. There is a well-documented history going all the way back to the deeds of the modern founder of Political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, as well as key Zionist figures such as Vladimir Jabotinsky and Avharam Stern.
Herzl, the founding father of modern Zionism, reached out to Vyacheslav von Plevhe, the Tsarist minister of the interior who is said to have been the brainchild behind the pogrom in Kishenev, Bessarabia during the Easter of 1903. Herzl’s goal was to convince Russia’s influential ministers to use the taxes collected from its Jewish subjects to fund emigration to Palestine and to finance any forms of negotiation with the Ottoman Empire over the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Eighteen years after Herzl’s meeting with von Plevhe in August 1903, Vladimir Jabotinsky met with Maxim Slavinsky, the ambassador of the pogromist Ukrainian leader, Symon Petlura in Prague. The idea was that Jabotinsky, the founder of the Haganah (the precursor of the the Israeli Defence Force), would organise a Zionist police force which would guard Jewish populations found in territories that Ukrainian nationalists could manage to reclaim from the Bolshevik Expeditionary Force which had run Petlura’s short-lived government out of Kiev.
Jabotinsky’s Ukrainian Pact of 1921 earned the scorn of many Jews who were aware that Petlura’s armies had been responsible for about half of the deaths of an estimated 60,000 Jews murdered in Ukraine between 1917 and 1921. But while his agreement had brought the disapprobation of members of the World Zionist Organisation, Jabotinsky, whose efforts on behalf of the allied cause during World War 1 had rendered him in the eyes of many Jews as an associate of the dreaded Tsarist government, would appropriate the words of Giuseppe Mazzini and boldly state “In working for Palestine, I would even ally myself with the devil.”
A deal with the devil is how many perceived -and still perceive- the agreement reached between elements within the Zionist movement and Nazi Germany. The Ha’avara (or Transfer) Agreement was achieved because of a coincidence of interests: The National Socialist aim of removing the Jews from Germany somewhat mirrored the Zionist goal of persuading German Jews to leave. And to Nazis such as Adolf Eichmann and Reinhard Heydrich, there appeared to be an inexorable logic to refer to themselves as “Zionist”.
Heydrich, a prominent leader of the SS is claimed to have remarked to his associates: “As a National Socialist, I am a Zionist”. And in a conversation with one Anny Stern, a survivor of Theresienstadt Concentration Camp, Eichmann, after ascertaining that Stern was a Zionist, told her “I am a Zionist too. I want every Jew to leave for Palestine.” Eichmann was quoted in a 1960 Lifemagazine article as informing Jews with whom he had dealings that if he had been a Jew, “I would have been a fanatical Zionist”.
The Ha’avara Agreement observed the following modus operandi: A German Jew would deposit money into a specific account in a German bank. The money would then be used to buy German goods for export, usually to Palestine. The Jewish emigres to Palestine would then receive payment for the goods which they had previously purchased after their final sale.
This occurred at a moment in time when the majority of world Jewry was embarked on a trade boycott against the Nazi regime, and the German Zionist-Nazi trade agreement arguably served to undermine this. It split the Zionist movement, and one consequence was the 1933 assassination of Chaim Arlosoroff in Tel Aviv soon after his return from negotiations in Germany.
While Jabotinsky had opposed any dealings with the Nazis and had sneered at Mussolini’s Fascist movement in the 1920s, as the 1930s progressed, he warmed to Italian Fascism which he began to perceive as “an ideology of racial equality”. In fact, he made an alliance between his Betar youth movement and the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini by establishing a naval training academy at Civitavecchia, a naval base north of Rome. Mussolini himself would tell David Prato, who later became Chief Rabbi of Rome that “For Zionism to succeed you need to have a Jewish state, with a Jewish flag and a Jewish language. The person who really understands that is your fascist, Jabotinsky”.
Another Zionist leader who counternanced forming an alliance with Fascist Italy was Avharam Stern. Stern was the leader of the terror group known as Lohamei Herut Yisrael (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), which is better known today by the British designation ‘The Stern Gang’. The group was formed after Stern’s release from British custody in 1940 and was an offshoot of the Irgun, the main Zionist terror group in Palestine.
While other Zionists suspended operations against the British for the duration of the war against Nazi Germany, Stern refused to do this unless the British recognised the claim for a Jewish state on both sides of the River Jordan. In his thinking, only the defeat Britain in the Middle East by an outside power would bring about a Jewish state. To this end, he sought a pact first with Fascist Italy, and, after being rebuffed, he pinned his hopes on forming an alliance with Nazi Germany.
Stern was contemptuous of liberal democracy and imbued with a volkish-like racism. The proposed pact with Nazi Germany referred to the “establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis” in a new order in which there would be “cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed Volkish-national Hebrium”. The 1941 document, which was discovered among files in the German Embassy in Ankara, offered to “actively take part in the war on Germany’s side.”
That is the history. And the state which came into being in 1948 has continued to nurture alliances with a range of politically extreme forces. Apart from Israel’s arrangement with eastern European Christian Nationalist parties, there is evidence of links to far-Right groups in Ukraine and a long relationship with a litany of Islamist groups.
The United States-sponsored Maidan coup which culminated in the overthrow of the elected government led by Viktor Yanukovytch, involved the use of far-Right and ultra-nationalist proxies, most, if not all of whom were Banderovsti, the name given to contemporary disciples and worshippers of Stepan Bandera, the nationalist figure whose organisation was behind the slaughter of Jewish and Polish communities during the Second World War. During that conflict, Banderites were members of specially composed Ukrainian Waffen-SS units such as the Galician, Nictengall and Roland Divisions.
Yet, Israel supplies arms to the Ukrainian military which is composed of significant elements who honour Bandera’s legacy, and whose members are unabashedly anti-Semitic in attitude and ideologically neo-Nazi. According to the founder of the militia, Andriy Biletsky, who is now a Ukrainian member of parliament, “(Ukraine’s) historic mission at this critical juncture is to lead the final march of the white race towards its survival. This is a march against sub-humans who are led by the Semite race.”
Pictures of members of the Azov Battalion, a former volunteer militia that has since been incorporated into the Ukrainian National Guard, posing with Israeli-made weapons incensed Israeli human rights groups who filed a petition seeking a court injunction to prevent arms exports to Ukraine. This is not the first time that the government of Israel has armed an anti-Semitic regime. Back in the 1970s, it supplied arms to the Argentinian military Junta which was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews.
It is also worth noting the involvement of Israeli citizens during the Maidan coup. Five Ukrainian Jewish emigres, who were former Israeli Defence Force soldiers, led a group of 40 street thugs in battles against the security forces of the Yanukovytch government. These street fighters belonged to the ultra-nationalist Svoboda Party whose leader Oleh Tyahnybok had in the past spoken about liberating Ukraine from what he described as the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia”. An article in April 2013 carried by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported a cadre of Svoboda thugs wearing white T-shirts emblazoned with the words “Beat the kikes.”
Tyahnybok would in the latter part of 2013 given a pledge to the Israeli ambassador that his party was no longer anti-Semitic. Similar assurances were given in February 2014 by the neo-Nazi Pravy Sektor group to the ambassador when its leader claimed that it had rejected xenophobia and anti-Semitism.
As to what motive Israel would have beyond financial gain and diplomatic influence in Ukraine, it may be that such support is predicated on a trans-generational Jewish antipathy towards Russia, a country with which it maintains a complex relationship. But as with its links to Polish and Hungarian ruling parties, it raises the disturbing issue of the Israeli state supporting governments which seek to minimise and even deny the historical role of their nations in the calamity that befell Jews in the 20th century.
Israel has also cultivated links with Islamic extremist groups. From funding the nascent Hamas organisation so that it would serve as a counter-weight to the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), to funding, arming and medically treating militia men linked to al-Qaeda who are fighting the secular government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Israel has sought to bolster its geopolitical objectives.
While such scheming may be justified on the rationale that it operates on “strong survival instincts”, it again opens up the legitimate criticism of the policies of the Zionist state being prone to short-sighted expediency and to moral contradiction.
It accuses Hamas, a group elected to power in Gaza, of being a “terrorist” body when in fact it bears a huge responsibility for its genesis into a political and military force. Israel’s role in building Hamas was admitted to by Brigadier-General Yitzhak Segev, a military governor of Gaza in the 1980s.
Its support of Islamist groups in Syria, which was recently revealed not to be limited to those located near the Golan Heights, has helped prolong a particularly cruel conflict.
The initial position that it was offering medical aid to jihadists professing the ideology of those who are said to bear responsibility for the September 11 attacks for humanitarian reasons, was exposed as patently untrue. When Efraim Halevy, a former head of Mossad, asserted that it was always useful to “deal with your enemies in a humane way”, he was challenged as to whether Israel would support the treatment of wounded Hezbollah fighters. To this, Halevy responded that while Israel has been targeted by Hezbollah, it had not been “specifically targeted by al-Qaeda.”
It should also be noted that during the Soviet-Afghan War, Israeli military intelligence was responsible for arming and training the guerillas of Herzb-i-Islami Mujahideen, one of the most hardline of the anti-Soviet Islamist groups of that war. Led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the group splintered after the war and its remnants merged into al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
From the time of its creation, Israel has worked tirelessly through multifarious channels to ensure that it has the political, economic and military backing of the United States. It has an extremely well-funded and aggressive lobby working on its behalf. One of the most critically important alliances forged by Jewish organisations and the government of Israel in the realm of American politics is that with conservative Christian Christian evangelicals.
In Christian Zionism, political Zionism again has formed an alliance with an ideological partner which ultimately is antithetical to Judaism. For while many such as John Hagee, chairman of Christians United for Israel, pledge a love for Israel, the eschatological doctrine is premised on the belief that the Jews, who rejected Jesus, will be given a final opportunity to accept Christ as their saviour and will be put to the sword if they refuse.
Arthur Balfour, whose letter to Lord Lionel Rothschild, the leader of Britain’s Jews, provided a critical step towards the creation of a Jewish homeland, was what would be termed today a Christian Zionist. Such homeland made perfect sense to a man who recoiled from the idea of Britain accepting more Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe. Modern leaders of the pre-tribulationist, pre-millennial dispensationalists of the pro-Israel Christian Right have on occasion betrayed anti-Jewish sentiment. For instance, Pat Robertson, the founder of the strongly pro-Israel Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) once referred to the Jewish founder of the US Military Religious Foundation as a “little Jewish radical” for promoting secularism in the American military. Robertson had earlier claimed that Jews were too busy “polishing diamonds” to do weekend chores. His contemporary, the late Jerry Falwell once stated that “most evangelicals believe the antichrist will, by necessity, be a Jewish male”.
Yet, for Israel, nurturing American evangelicals has been a beneficial task because of the importance of the Christian Right in American politics. They have exercised influence on American foreign policy and have contributed millions of dollars to Israeli groups. Their practical use for Zionism is that they economically support those in Israel’s society who are most opposed to any form of concessions to the Palestinians and encourage the colonisation of Palestinian land by the most fanatical Jewish settlers.
While it is argued that this “long, uneasy love affair” may have peaked, the American evangelical Right is still viewed favourably by the Israel. In early 2018, Naftali Bennett, the leader of the Right-wing Home Party, expressed his happiness at the relationship and was quoted as saying: “We need to use the opportunity to the best of Israel’s national interests and security.”
In Donald Trump, the current American president, Israeli interests and security are assiduously catered to. The most pro-Israel president since Lyndon Johnson has recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and has moved his country’s embassy to that city. He has abrogated the Five Plus One Treaty in which the United States and other world powers reached agreement with Iran to monitor its nuclear development programme. Indeed, Trump’s overarching objective in cultivating an anti-Iranian Middle East coalition, at the heart of which are Israel and Saudi Arabia, is clearly designed towards staging a military attack on Iran.
So lauded have Trump’s efforts being that Binyamin Netanyahu compared him to Cyrus the Great, the ancient Persian King who enabled the return of Jews from exile 2,500 years ago. Netanyahu also compared Trump to Lord Balfour and President Harry Truman, the former being the instigator of ‘The Balfour Declaration’ while the latter provided Israel with de facto recognition after its declaration of independence in 1948. Balfour’s anti-Semitism is well known, and while Harry Truman was largely thought of as being a philo-Semite, a posthumously revealed entry in his diary recorded that he found Jews to be “very, very selfish”. “When they have power”, he continued, “physical, financial or political, neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment for the underdog”.
While in Trump, the Jewish state has found an extremely supportive ally in the White House, it is also clear that he has purposefully courted those among his countrymen who are sympathetic to the cause of white nationalism. In doing this, he resorted to using what were considered as anti-Semitic tropes during his campaign for the presidency. There were numerous examples of this. For instance, his comments before a gathering of potential Jewish donors at the Republican Jewish Convention about them not supporting him “because I don’t want your money”, more than hinted at the stereotype of Jews controlling electoral candidates. So too was his delay in disavowing the endorsement given to him by David Duke, the former Klansman who now styles himself as a white civil rights activist. He also posted a twitter meme of Hillary Clinton implying that what he captioned “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!” was backed by Jewish money. Then his final campaign advertisement, which juxtaposed images of Jewish figures in the financial world with rhetoric alluding to Jewish power (“global power structure”), effectively suggested that Jews were at the heart of America’s economic malaise.
Yet, this has not stopped influential Jewish figures such as Alan Dershowitz from offering Trump critical support because of Trump’s pro-Israel policies. Prime Minister Netanyahu has often voiced his support for Trump including his proposal to build a wall on the United States border with Mexico. “President Trump is right”, Netanyahu tweeted in January 2017. “I built a wall along Israel’s southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea.”
Netanyahu’s comments came after the furore caused by using Israel as an example when forcefully putting forward his case that a wall be built on the US’s southern border. Trump’s proposal was criticised as being symptomatic of the intolerant streak running through many of his policies. Yet, many of his critics do not react in the same manner when attention is turned to Israel.
Contemporary Israel is not the bastion of tolerance which many of its advocates are fond of proclaiming. The coalition government which presently governs it is by common agreement the most Right-wing in Israeli history. It is a drift which several people foresaw in 1948 when Herut, the Right-wing nationalist party headed by former Irgun leader Menachem Begin was formed. This development was met with great dismay by many Jewish intellectuals including Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt who took it upon themselves to write an open letter to the New York Times to warn that Israel would head down a path which legitimised “ultranationalism, religious mysticism and racial supremacy”.
Israel maintains a brutal occupation of what is left of Palestine in the West Bank and continues the strangulation of Gaza via a blockade, showing no moral qualms when snipers of the IDF kill and maim unarmed Palestinian protesters with little chance of breaching the system of iron wiring and moats which surround them. The colonising of West Bank continues with Palestinian land being taken by force while plans for the fresh construction of settlements are given intermittently. The Jewish settlers are then given choice land on which to reside and their security as well as day-to-day living needs are catered to. For instance, they travel on roads reserved only for Jews and have access to water resources which are increasingly in short supply to the inexorably constricted Palestinian enclaves.
In contemporary Israel, which demonises African migrants as ‘infiltrators’ -a term consistently used by Netanyahu himself- a clear majority of the population oppose the accepting of refugees. African refugees, who at a peak population of 60,000 would amount to one per cent of the 8 million Israeli population, were, because they were black and non-Jewish, claimed to pose a threat to Israel’s Jewish character. According to Miri Regev, a Likud member of the Knesset who is now culture minister, they are like a “cancer in the body”. Although she offered an apology, a poll conducted soon after her statement by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) Peace Index in May 2012, found that 52% of Israelis agreed with her.
As of writing, fewer than a dozen African migrants had been granted asylum, and Israel has consistently sought ways by which refugees can be removed or otherwise persuaded to leave: by threat of jail, deportations to third party African states, and through a regulation whereby 20 percent of their wages are retained by the state until they leave the country. In 2012, set against a rise in widespread fear and animosity over migrants who were blamed for worsening the economy and crime rates, anti-black rioting broke out in Tel-Aviv. This involved acts of vandalism, looting and firebombing. No deaths were reported, but there were many injuries.
Anti-black racism has also been directed at Ethiopian Jews, many of whom live in poverty and are socially ostracised. Some years previously, it was discovered that the Israeli state had embarked on programme of secretly sterilising Ethiopian Jewish women. They are also subjected to harassment and brutality at the hands of police. In a notorious incident in 2016, an IDF soldier of Ethiopian ethnicity was captured on camera being violently assaulted by a police officer who had threatened to put a bullet in his head.
But the passage of the nation-state law, which one Arab member of the Knesset bitterly denounced as “the end of democracy”, and “the official beginning of fascism and apartheid”, is in many respects merely consolidating a long-existing state of affairs. After all, Israel’s identification as the Jewish state found quick expression through the passage in 1950 of the Law of Return. This has intrinsically meant that the needs of its non-Jewish citizens, the approximately 21 percent Arab minority, is less of a priority than those of its Jewish citizens, and, indeed, that of the Jewish diaspora. The discrimination against and the neglect of Arab-Israeli communities was acknowledged in the report issued by the Orr Commission in 2003.
The governing Likud Party, which first came to power in 1977, and which for a lengthy period of time has returned the largest number of seats in the Knesset, is an offshoot of Begin’s Herut party, the creation of which caused such consternation in the likes of Einstein and Arendt. Likud thus traces a direct line of influence to the Revisionist Zionism of Jabotinsky, who Mussolini referred to as a “fascist”.
The ‘Iron Wall’ mentality and its values permeate Israel today. After all it was, Yair Golan then deputy chief of staff of the IDF who at a speech at the Holocaust Remembrance Day in May 2016 likened “revolting trends” in Israeli society to that of pre-Holocaust Nazi Germany. And Moshe Yaalon, a former IDF chief of staff, who resigned from his position as minister of defence prior to being replaced by the hardliner Avigdor Lieberman, said that he was “fearful for Israel’s future” given this tilt to the Right.
Israel’s embrace of the global far-Right led by Likud’s Netanyahu thus cannot be characterised solely as an expedient manoeuvre that is a continuum of the Zionist mentality aiming to perform any bargain that advances the interests if its cause. There is also a marked coherence in ideology. When Netanyahu hails the electoral victory in Brazil of Jair Bolsonaro and refers to Bolsonaro as “a true friend of the state of Israel”, and the Italian far-Right politician, Matteo Salvini as “a great friend of Israel”, his gestures have not gone unrequited. Like Netanyahu, both are nationalist and xenophobic in both philosophy and policies.
And just as Avharam Stern contemplated an ethno-Jewish state forming a part of a New Order in the Middle East which would complement the racial New Order he expected to come to fruition in a Europe under Nazi domination, Netanyahu’s actions in highlighting the commonalities between Israel and the global far-Right provides evidence of an acceptance and welcoming of a new-era form of global ethno-nationalism.
It is something Israel has sought to impose on its neighbours in the Middle East via their balkanisation into ethnic and religious mini-states, albeit that its motivation for doing this is to promote its regional hegemony. The creation of Sunni, Shia and Christian mini-states would serve not only to weaken countries such as Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, but also provide a justification for Israel’s existence as an ethno-state.
The allure of ethno-nationalism to Right-wing secular and religious Jews is apparent to those in Jewish communities who have been dismayed by those Jews who offer support and succour to the extremist element of the European and North American extreme Right. Among American Orthodox Jews, the majority of whom voted for Donald Trump, there has been a noticeable spread of white nationalist sentiment. They, along with those neoconservatives such as Ben Shapiro, Joel Pollack and Dennis Prager, as well as those associated with the alt-right such as Laura Loomer who applaud and condone the typically derogatory statements directed at non-whites and Muslims by the alt-right are accused by their fellow Jews of creating the conditions which will have negative consequences for Jews.
These stances reveal a fundamental hypocrisy. For those Jewish individuals who claim to be supportive of European nationalism and North American white nationalism, so long as it is a “healthy” sort, it is often the case that they are contented only when vitriol is directed at others and not at Jews.
But even then, the support by some is not overridden by demonstrable anti-Semitism. Consider for instance the statement made by the co-leader of the German AfD who minimised the Nazi persecution of Jews when stating that the Nazi-era was a mere “speck of bird poo in over 1,000 years of successful German history”. And Ezra Levant was noticeably forgiving after Gavin McInnes, a contributor to Levant’s Rebel Media, once spoke about the Jews “ruining the world with their lies and their money and their hooked-nose bagel-eating faces”.
As noted earlier, the key reason why the embrace of the alt-Right and white nationalism by some Jews is considered to be a surprising development is because they have historically borne the brunt of attendant hatred and persecution from nationalist movements. Thus, Jewish communities have, for good reason, long being considered to be ineluctably hostile to nationalist movements, albeit that the extreme Right has traditionally maintained that leaders of organised Jewry conveniently do not extend their reservations to Jewish nationalism.
Jewish-American uneasiness about Donald Trump, whose recent statement that he was a “nationalist” was interpreted as a coded reference to the ideology of white nationalism, was expressed by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) when Trump first referred to his election platform as being one of “America First”. The ADL urged him to drop his ‘America First’ campaign slogan on the grounds that it had an “anti-Semitic past”, owing to the stance of prominent members of the America First Committee such as Charles Lindbergh who asserted that Jews were pushing isolationist America towards military involvement in the European war that became World War II.
Some may be inclined to consider whether some Diaspora Jews have been lulled into a false sense of security. They have, after all, lived during an era when levels of anti-Semitism fell to record lows, are proud of their social and economic achievements, and consider themselves conservative and sufficiently distinct from the traditional extreme-Right conception of the Jew as a dangerous leftist radical. Importantly, most are white-skinned and of European (Ashkenazi) descent.
But this is, of course, not the equivalent of possessing anAriernachweis, and many would consider it to be a dangerous speculation to assume that Jewish communities will be unscathed when, amid great polarisations in society, campaigns of demonisation ensue and violence erupts.
Yet, for those Jews who support the sentiments of white nationalist hatred and contempt for non-whites, the remarks made by Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch in a sermon delivered at the Stephen Wise Synagogue after the murder of of eleven worshippers at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, present a cautionary note: “Even if we are not the immediate target of prejudice, sooner or later it will come back to the Jews anyway,” adding poignantly, “Did anyone think that an atmosphere of intolerance would bypass Jews?…that we can mark the doorposts of our house and that the angel of death can pass over us?”
They are words worth ruminating over by those Jews, whether as representatives of the Jewish state or as individuals, who enthusiastically continue to ride the tiger of white nationalism.

Source

Syria’s Constitutional Committee Failed to Form Because of UN’s Special Envoy

December 19, 2018

Geneva Talks Syria Constitutional Committee

The Syrian Constitutional Committee imposed on Syria by the United Nations Security Council resolution 2254 was supposed to be announced yesterday. Last moment’s complications and arrogance failed its formation.

Now, the hyenas try to gain in politics what they failed while slaughtering tens of thousands of Syrians bombing them into Western-style ‘democracy’ and lifestyle.

The members of sought after ‘Constitutional Committee’ were supposed to be in a total of 150, one third provided by the Syrian state, one third provided by terrorists’ representatives, and the last third to be formed from civil society.

While the Syrian state delegation provided the names of the representatives of the Syrian people, who mostly were experts in constitutional law, the terrorists representatives provided their list from former delegates of Geneva talks when they were controlling most of Syria’s geography through ISIS and Nusra Front and their affiliates, and the least of the population who fled their areas towards Syrian Government’s controlled areas.

Disgraced UN Special Envoy to Syria Staffan De Mistura
UN Special Envoy to Syria Staffan De Mistura

The UN’s or better be described the hyenas’ special envoy wanted to include in the members list a number of personalities known for their enmity to their own Syrian people and known more for their absolute loyalty to the USA and other enemies of Syria.

De Mistura wanted to achieve something before his voluntary departure end of this year, but despite his decades of diplomatic work, he seems to have lost track.

This is what happens when the losing party of a war insists on gaining politically what they lost on the ground with massacres and mayhem.

Arabi Souri

United Nations special envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura once again proves he has an agenda which is contrary to working to restore peace and security in Syria and to preserve the country’s sovereignty.

Mistura’s sponsors ‘War of Terror’ they waged on Syria had a massive toll on the Syrian people, but it failed in achieving its political goals, thanks to the Syrians sacrifices and the hefty price they paid to save their country from being another puppet for the US.

The guarantors of the Astana talks, Russia, Turkey, and Iran, promised to provide a complete list of all 150 names to choose 30 or 45 of them for the committee to write or amend the Syrian constitution.

Syria Constitutional Committee Talks Geenva Russia, Turkey, Iran
Images tweeted by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif

The Turkish Erdogan regime, in its part, insisted on including 6 of its servants in the committee, who are members of the Muslim Brotherhood international terrorist organization, whose Godfather is Erdogan himself.

James Jeffrey, the US’s special envoy for Syria, has warned that his country’s mercenaries in US military uniforms are to remain illegally in the country until the initial goal of Regime Change is achieved, thus adding pressure on the Syrian state and its allies to surrender peacefully or face further terrorist attacks.

Talks in Geneva about forming the Constitutional Committee will resume today and the participants hope to reach an agreement if the UN’s envoy and his patrons drop their rudeness and criminal agenda towards Syria.

We, Syrians, would like to promise the world that Syria will not fall, even if it will cost us until the last drop of blood of the last Syrian. If the West and its regional stooges can bear further fight, let them be responsible for the consequences.


Follow us on Telegram: http://t.me/syupdates link will open Telegram app.
To help us continue please visit the Donate page to donate or learn other ways.

The trials and tribulations of Turkish foreign policy

December 01, 2018

The trials and tribulations of Turkish foreign policy

Professor Hasan Unal, a top political scientist based in Istanbul, explains the geopolitics of his region, the eastern Mediterranean and into the Black Sea

by Pepe Escobar (cross-posted with The Asia Times by special agreement with the author)

When Vladimir Putin visited President Erdogan’s lavish new $500-million presidential palace in Ankara, he had one thing to say: “I’m very impressed.” Professor Hasan Unal, savoring the dry humor, derives as much pleasure in retelling the story as Putin’s remark may have been lost on Erdogan, who is famous for his lack of humor.

Professor Hasan Unal is one of Turkey’s foremost political scientists and international relations experts. I had the pleasure of spending a long afternoon with Unal at Maltepe University in Istanbul, where he now enjoys plenty of time to “just teach” after an extremely busy academic career in Ankara. These are some of the highlights of our conversation:

Tell me your views about the Khashoggi affair?

Unal: “The Turkish government played the first stage very well. When you get to the second stage, what you get is very dangerous articles in Turkish media suggesting that the Turkish government now has a wonderful opportunity to strike at the Saudi Crown Prince [Mohammed Bin Salman]. Once you move to that stage, it’s not in Turkey’s interest. Who’s going to sign on the future of the Crown Prince? Not Turkey. Not Russia. But the United States. They have invested so much in this Crown Prince. Would it be in Turkey’s interest to push the United States into a corner?

What about the explosive new equation in the Eastern Mediterranean?

Unal: “What Turkey should have done is to use this incident in Istanbul to cultivate the [Saudi] King and say, “King Salman, look, your son is implicated.” But if you attack his son, how are you going to cultivate that relationship? Turkey should have said, ‘Let’s improve our relations first’. And also, ‘I need your support over Egypt’. That would be basically a win-win situation. And I would sell it to my gallery as a major victory. We need Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean. What this government has done is a dangerous thing. They have pushed both Israel and Egypt into the hands of the Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean. They have basically formed an anti-Turkish alliance. And that is foolish from the part of the Turkish government. But to get to that stage, Ankara should have realized something first: ‘Get your mind out of Idlib [in Syria]’.

This brings us to ideology and foreign policy. What is your take on this?

Unal: “What the Crown Prince represents is a region-wide, anti-Muslim Brotherhood policy. That is like a Russian matryoshka. You never know who’s going to pop up next. Turkish foreign policy should be focused on the national interest. I would say that an ideologically driven foreign policy went off-track in 2011. And events proved it could not produce the desired effect. That policy was reconsidered a few times, but there’s still fall-out – ideological baggage that seems to be poisoning Turkish foreign policy.”

Professor Hasan Unal, Istanbul

Professor Hasan Unal. Photo: Asia Times

Can we switch now to NATO and the Black Sea from a Turkish standpoint?

Unal: “NATO is forcing itself into the Black Sea through Romania and Bulgaria, not through Turkey. And they are forcing Georgia to act like a NATO country. Georgia in NATO, that would be out of order, it would be like [starting] a Third World War, basically. The Americans want the Montreux agreement, which basically governs the Straits, to be sidelined [under the 1936 agreement Turkey controls the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles and rules on the transit of warships].

“Turkey would never accept that. Over Ukraine, Turkish policy officially is, we support the territorial integrity of Ukraine. You can’t say anything more than that or less than that. What you say in favor of Russia may backfire on you in another dispute. If you recognize Crimea as part of Russia, what you are you gonna say about the Karabagh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan?”

Tell us about Turkey, Russia, Cyprus, and Crimea.

Unal: “In the end, it might actually come to a point where the Russians recognize northern Cyprus and we recognize Crimea as part of Russia. I would basically set up a naval and air base in northern Cyprus jointly used by Russia and Turkey. Don’t forget, the whole geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean has changed since the Syrian conflict. There’s got to be concessions. When states want to do something, they formulate a policy with a little bit of international law, a bit about historical arguments, politics, population, geography, and then you make an argument. And if you don’t want to do anything, again you bring this all together to support the opposite. The other important concession is the Russians should get the Armenians out of Azerbaijan-occupied territories.”

What about a key silent player, Kazakhstan’s President Nazarbayev?

Unal: “Nazarbayev is a very wise leader. He wields all this influence over Putin and Russia, as much as they wield influence over him. Don’t forget that these guys worked together. Nazarbayev was their superior. Kazakhs, when you talk to them, they say, if the Soviet Union had continued, he was going to be the Soviet leader. When [former Turkish President Suleyman] Demirel visited the Soviet Union, he had heard a lot about imprisoned Turks in the Soviet empire. Then he visited Moscow and saw the Turks running the show – [plus] Uzbeks, Kazakhs …”

How do you see Turkey’s role in China’s Belt and Road Initiative?

Unal: “The only good thing I’m happy about is that at least we have not made an ideologically-driven policy about the initiative to oppose it. The Uighur problem always pops up when it comes to Turkey-China relations. We don’t know the scale of what’s been happening in there [Xinjiang). A certain section of Turkish public opinion would buy the notion of concentration camps for Uighurs. But for the general public, it’s not something they understand. When I was working in Gazi University in Ankara, a group of scholars at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, experts on Xinjiang, they came, challenged prejudices, they were very confident. There are Turkish-Chinese negotiations about joint production of missiles. Building of roads and high-speed railways is something our present government would love to see happening. Perhaps they think they are already supporting it [BRI] without letting it be known.”

أهم من بقاء ورحيل محمد بن سلمان

نوفمبر 29, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– يقع البعض في التسطيح عندما يقارب المشهد الدولي الإقليمي المنعقد حول عنوان هو الوضع الجديد للسعودية في ضوء الحملة المرافقة لقتل جمال الخاشقجي، من خلال جعل القضية محصورة بالإجابة عن سؤال هل تتم تنحية محمد بن سلمان من ولاية العهد وهل تتم معاقبته أم لا؟ فالأكيد أن أي بديل لإبن سلمان سيكون من كنف البطانة العائلية والسياسية ذاتها وسيكون في ظل المرجعية الأميركية ذاتها، وفي إطار الخيارات العدائية ذاتها تجاه قوى المقاومة، والعناوين ذاتها للسير بالتعاون مع كيان الاحتلال والتطبيع معه، لذلك سيكون تضييعاً للوقت تعقب الأمور من زاوية هذا المسار، والتسطيح الأشد طبعاً هو توهّم أن ما يجري حملة حقوق إنسان ودعوة لمعاقبة قاتل. وما يجري سياسيا هو أن السعودية وقعت في اطمئنانها لحلفائها فأوقعوا بها، وما يجري تاريخياً هو أن ما دبّره السعوديون ومَن معهم في لبنان لسورية والمقاومة وأصدقائهما وحلفائهما في قضية اغتيال الرئيس رفيق الحريري وقعوا هم في حفرته في ما سبق وما سيلي في قضية قتل جمال الخاشقجي، والأكيد أنه لو سارت الأمور نحو تحقيق دولي فهذا لن يعني اقتراباً من العدالة ولا من الحقيقة، بل سيعني توافقاً على إطالة أمد الاستعمال للقضية في تحقيق أهداف أبعد تصبح أمراً واقعاً كلما تمادى حضور القضية.

– المعلوم أن الثلاثي الذي يقود الحملة حول الخاشقجي والعدالة وملاحقة إبن سلمان يتكون من تركيا ومعها طبعاً قطر والأخوان المسلمون وقناة الجزيرة في ضفة، ووكالة المخابرات المركزية الأميركية ومن تستطيع تحريكهم والتأثير في تحريكهم داخل أميركا وخارجها من منظمات مجتمع مدني وهيئات حقوقية وشخصيات نيابية وحكومية، في ضفة ثانية، وفي ضفة ثالثة صحيفة الواشنطن بوست ومِن حولها الغاضبون من إدارة الرئيس دونالد ترامب من الحزبين الجمهوري والديمقراطي وخارجهما ولأسباب ليست العلاقة بالسعودية ولا الجرائم الوحشية في اليمن ولا قتل جمال الخاشقجي في أولوياتهم، بل السياسات العنصرية لترامب في قضايا الجنسية والمواطنة، والتأمين الصحي، والفشل في سياسات الحماية الجمركية والعقوبات بتحقيق الطفرة الاقتصادية الصناعية الموعودة، والخطاب المبتذل لترامب في قضايا المرأة والإعلام والحريات والتعدّد العرقي الاجتماعي، لكن المعلوم أيضاً أن صفقة غامضة تمّت بين تركيا ووكالة المخابرات الأميركية انتهت بالإفراج عن القس الإنجيلي أندرو برانسون الذي بقي معتقلاً لمدة عامين إثر محاولة الانقلاب التي استهدفت الرئيس التركي رجب أردوغان ووجّهت أنقرة لواشنطن الإتهام بدعم المحاولة عبر المعارض الداعية فتح الله غولن، وطلبت تسليمه مقابل الإفراج عن برانسون. والمعلوم أن صفقة غامضة ايضاً تمت بين الواشنطن بوست والمخابرات الأميركية رعاها المالك الجديد للصحيفة الأميركية صاحب شركة أمازون جيفري برستون بيزوس وتتصل بالتعاون في مجال تبادل المعلومات والخدمات وقعت علناً منذ عام تقريباً، ومن مفاعيلها إفادة الواشنطن بوست من التحقيقات في قضايا حقوق الإنسان التي تجريها السي آي أي، والسي آي أي لا تجري التحقيقات لأجل إقامة عدالة، بل لإجراء تغيير في السياسة، وقيمة الصفقة المستغربة في أوساط أهل الإعلام كانت ستمئة مليون دولار، والبعض يقول إن استضافة الواشنطن بوست لجمال الخاشقجي كاتباً على صفحتها الأولى كان من ضمن مفاعيل التفاهم.

– يختال محمد بن سلمان في زيارات مفبركة لإثبات أن شيئاً لم يتغير في وضعه، رغم الحملات التي تستهدفه، كأنه يصدّق أن القضية هي اعتقاله، لكن الأشياء الحقيقية تحدث في العمق، وتتثبت بصورة لا رجعة عنها. فالسعودية فقدت مهابتها وهالتها، ولم تعد تلك الدولة الممنوع التداول باسمها في الصحافة الغربية إلا بالترويج المدفوع، ورموزها صاروا في التداول وصورهم تنشر على الصفحات الأولى تحت عنوان قاتل ومجنون ومعتوه ومجرم وسواها من التوصيفات المشابهة. وباتت التظاهرات تنتظر مسؤولي المملكة في أي عاصمة يقصدونها، وانتقلت السعودية من صانع سياسات إلى موضوع للسياسات، ومن موقع كونها لاعباً إلى أنها صارت ملعباً، ومن صفة مَن يقرّر مصير الآخرين إلى صفة من يقرّر الآخرون مصيره، وثانياً انتقلت تركيا إلى موقع الزعامة البديلة للسعودية في الضفة الأميركية من العالم الإسلامي، برصيد علاقاتها المميّزة بروسيا وإيران، وثالثاً وضعت حرب اليمن على الطاولة، ورابعاً وضعت العلاقات الأميركية السعودية قيد البحث، وخامساً انتقل الرئيس الأميركي وفريقه من نكسة الانتخابات النصفية إلى نكبة إبن سلمان حيث تلاشت كل قدرة على الهجوم وصار حكماً في حال الدفاع.

– مسارات جديدة لخريطة إقليمية ودولية جديدة ترتسم، ربما تنتهي خلال عامين وربما أكثر، ستبقى خلالها قضية الخاشقجي وإبن سلمان في التداول، وربما تنشأ لها محكمة دولية خاصة، لكن هذه المسارات هي التي تتقدّم، ولا يعود مهماً بعدها بقي إبن سلمان ولياً للعهد أم لا، بقي حراً أم تمّت معاقبته أم لا، فتلك نقاط على جدول أعمال المعنيين، وعندما تتم فلأنها من ضرورات المضي قدماً في تثبيت المسارات، وليس لأنها مطلوبة بذاتها، تذكروا كيف عندما تمت السيطرة على أجهزة الأمن اللبنانية لم يعد مهماً إثبات مسؤولية الضباط الأربعة الذين كانوا يتولونها عن التورّط في اغتيال الريس الحريري، وكيف أن اعتقالهم والإفراج عنهم لم ترافقه أي تصرّفات توحي باحترام حتى الشكليات القانونية، وعندما تمّ ضمان خروج القوات السورية من لبنان وتمّت السيطرة على الأغلبية النيابية التي كانت مستحيلة في ظل بقاء الرئيس الحريري حياً، لم تعُد مهمة ملاحقة سورية بتهمة الاغتيال، وكيف أن حزب الله وهو الطرف الذي بذل كل شيء للتعاون في كشف الحقيقة وأظهر الحرص على تقديم التنازل لمنع الفتنة، لم يوفر له ذلك الحصانة من التحوّل إلى متهم أول بالاغتيال بموافقة عائلة الرئيس الحريري الشاهدة على كيف سلم الأغلبية النيابية طوعاً في الحلف الرباعي، وكيف تغاضى عن ملاحقة أصدقائه بتهمة الاغتيال حرصاً على اطمئنان العائلة، وها هو اليوم متهماً أول لأن مصلحة «إسرائيل» ذاتها باغتيال الرئيس الحريري لإنعاش قوى التطرف في الساحة الإسلامية، ليتهيأ استعمالها الذي شهدناه في الحرب على سورية، هي المصلحة ذاتها لملاحقة حزب الله بتهمة الاغتيال، وها هي السنة الثالثة عشرة على الاغتيال والمسارات لم تقفل.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Excerpts from President Donald Trump’s Statement on Standing with Saudi Arabia

November 28, 2018

Excerpts from President Donald Trump’s Statement on Standing with Saudi Arabia

by: Chris Faure for The Saker Blog

“The world is a very dangerous place!”

“The country of Iran, as an example, is responsible for a bloody proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen, trying to destabilize Iraq’s fragile attempt at democracy, supporting the terror group Hezbollah in Lebanon, propping up dictator Bashar Assad in Syria (who has killed millions of his own citizens), and much more. Likewise, the Iranians have killed many Americans and other innocent people throughout the Middle East. Iran states openly, and with great force, “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” Iran is considered “the world’s leading sponsor of terror.”

The world is indeed a very dangerous place if the so-called leader of the free world and the West, without blushing, starts off a statement about the murder of a Saudi journalist by slamming Iran, Hezbollah, Bashar al-Assad and includes that propitious marketing statement … “and much more.” And when did Bashar al-Assad kill millions of his own citizens anyway?

As we read on, we will see that the opening statement to the Statement is an eye-blind, deliberate distraction, powered by oil price paranoia, and paranoia that this Statement would not do what it is intended to do – that is to obscure the absence of any kind of moral yardstick or ethical firmament. By opening with a litany of tired old phrases on Hezbollah, Iran “and much more”, it is hoped that the ‘official reality’ will hide the ‘actual reality’. These are Games that Zionists play. They are also Games that Kindergartners play: “It was not me, it was he! Really teacher, I’m not lying.”

The story itself reads like an international spook-spy crime novel. Alternatively, if you change the names of the countries for New York ‘burbs, it reads like a new Sicilian mob novel. But even the Sicilian mob had a code of honor, something that is completely absent in this Statement.

The journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, contributed to the Washington Post and lived in Virginia. His slaying took place in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey on October 2nd, 2018, by a 15 man Saudi hit team where the Turkish State had surreptitiously bugged the Saudi embassy and the listening and recording equipment in the Saudi embassy recorded blow by blow the Saudi hit team carrying out the beating, killing and dismemberment. Perhaps the dismemberment preceded the killing. Since then, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of Turkey, has salaciously revealed the details of this brutal slaying, drip by drop to the world, seeking any favor and any edge concession somewhere in the international arena, with his recording of flaming and violent evidence. Eventually, this murder recording reached Mr. Donald Trump, who of course, is best friends with The House of Saud.

Sidebar: With a little research into Who is Jamal Khashoggi?, we find that he is a cousin of Adnan Khashoggi, his uncle, a Saudi super-rich businessman. Those who read Trump’s The Art of the Deal, will remember that Trump and Adnan Khashoggi visited together during the ’80s. For purposes of this article we will not dwell on this here, but leave this to you. Jake Morphonios starts this research on his video from time marker 44:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrsgNZaUuvY

There is ample proof (substantially more than highly likely) that MbS (Mohammad bin Salman, Crown Prince of Saudi and better known as Clown Prince) directly orchestrated this murder. The hit squad hailed from MbS’s private office chief, Bader Al Asaker. The CIA stated that MbS was directly involved but subsequently Mr Trump denied that the CIA had stated this.  Meanwhile, back at the ranch in Ankara or Istanbul, seemingly Mr Edogan kept little piece of the CIA story back, as a bargaining chip of some sort.  “The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is in possession of a phone call recording of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in which he is heard giving an instruction to “silence Jamal Khashoggi as soon as possible,” Hürriyet columnist Abdulkadir Selvi wrote on Nov. 22.  http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/cia-holds-smoking-gun-phone-call-of-saudi-crown-prince-on-khashoggi-murder-columnist-139079

Let’s continue.

“The world is a very dangerous place!”

“On the other hand, Saudi Arabia would gladly withdraw from Yemen if the Iranians would agree to leave. They would immediately provide desperately needed humanitarian assistance. Additionally, Saudi Arabia has agreed to spend billions of dollars in leading the fight against Radical Islamic Terrorism.”

One cannot make this up: Post moral rationalization reads like satire. The world is truly a very dangerous place if Wahhabi Saudi is presented as humanitarian and the war in Yemen as an Iranian supported war. The concept that the (out)House of Saud would immediately provide desperately needed humanitarian assistance to Yemen beggars belief. It does make sense however if one considers or accepts the perspective that Mukhtar (appointed headman and tax farmer) Donald Trump swore allegiance to his Saudi Buddies in Riyadh in full vision of the world in a strange testosterone-filled ceremony involving laying communal hands on a lighted sphere and dancing.  The Saudis could have made the promise to Mr. Trump that they will surely and quickly become humanitarian in Yemen, so that he could get on with it and write his Statement that is clearly sans honor and devoid of ethics.

Descriptions: (Out)House of Saud attributed to Dr. Joseph P. Farrell – Mukhtar (appointed headman and tax farmer) attributed to Patrick Lang.

“The world is a very dangerous place!”

“After my heavily negotiated trip to Saudi Arabia last year, the Kingdom agreed to spend and invest $450 billion in the United States. This is a record amount of money. It will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, tremendous economic development, and much additional wealth for the United States. Of the $450 billion, $110 billion will be spent on the purchase of military equipment from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and many other great U.S. defense contractors. If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries – and very happy to acquire all of this newfound business. It would be a wonderful gift to them directly from the United States! “

So, now we get to the crux of the matter of the Statement. The world is surely a very dangerous place if it is so clear that it is money that talks and the Saudis can kill whomever the Saudis want to kill, but we all know the show must go on. In this instance, the show is the signed defense contracts and the oil price.  So, to be forgiven and exonerated of brutal murder, the new legal standard set by Mr. Trump is that one only needs to keep the oil flowing and promise to buy US weaponry and perhaps promise to be nice, in Yemen.

But if your name is Julian Assange, or Edward Snowden, or Jack who lives down the road, and you don’t have oil, and you don’t sign defense contracts and you cannot promise to change your essential nature and to be nice in Yemen, the rules change of course. But for the Saudis, we are now outside of any pretense of the Rule of Law.

In one fell swoop, it is clear that we are in a post-honor and post-ethics world, and we even see an evil note surface if a base commandment, Though Shalt Not Kill, can easily be superseded by oil and military contracts. The Middle East Eye reports that the man built from cards, Pompeo, handed Riyadh a plan to shield MbS from Khashoggi fallout

“The world is a very dangerous place!”

“The crime against Jamal Khashoggi was a terrible one and one that our country does not condone. Indeed, we have taken strong action against those already known to have participated in the murder. After great independent research, we now know many details of this horrible crime. We have already sanctioned 17 Saudis known to have been involved in the murder of Mr. Khashoggi, and the disposal of his body. “

What? How dangerous is the world now if murder is sanctioned by sanctions, not by a court of law, but by a President of the United States who has now turned over all pretense at investigation, due process, all semblance of an independent judiciary, and all pretense of the rule of law. Great Independent Research? Was this also around a lighted sphere with much dancing? For the record, Mr. Trump has now ignored all of his specialist agencies in favor of Great Independent Research, not documented and probably fact-free.

The world is getting more dangerous by the minute as this story unfolds.

“The world is a very dangerous place!”

“Representatives of Saudi Arabia say that Jamal Khashoggi was an “enemy of the state” and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but my decision is in no way based on that – this is an unacceptable and horrible crime. King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman vigorously deny any knowledge of the planning or execution of the murder of Mr. Khashoggi. Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information, but it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event – maybe he did, and maybe he didn’t!”

The World is a very dangerous place if it does not matter if the Clown prince had prior knowledge of this brutal murder being planned and executed. No way José, that is not important. Oil is important, and weapons contracts are important. But, wait a minute, why all these weapons? Was Saudi not intending to wrap the Yemenis in their loving arms and become humanitarian?  I was already expecting flowers in the rifle barrels.

“The world is a very dangerous place!”

“That being said, we may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi. In any case, our relationship is with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. “

We have to stop right here. This is an inept and unacceptable effort to remove this beating, murder, and dismemberment from the sphere of affairs of the State, and State to State interaction. But wait a minute, did this murder not take place in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul? How much more ‘affairs of the State’ can one get? It is gauche attempt at separating affairs of state, and it fails to convince.

Can anyone imagine the fall-out if this was not Saudi Arabia, but Russia?  Can you imagine the fall-out?

“They have been a great ally in our very important fight against Iran. The United States intends to remain a steadfast partner of Saudi Arabia to ensure the interests of our country, Israel and all other partners in the region. It is our paramount goal to fully eliminate the threat of terrorism throughout the world! I understand there are members of Congress who, for political or other reasons, would like to go in a different direction – and they are free to do so. I will consider whatever ideas are presented to me, but only if they are consistent with the absolute security and safety of America. After the United States, Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producing nation in the world. They have worked closely with us and have been very responsive to my requests to keeping oil prices at reasonable levels – so important for the world.”

And this statement could not be complete without mentioning Israel, could it? Following is the complete exoneration and pardon for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia because they bow to the dictat of the lighted sphere and the demands of a capricious US President for low oil prices who rewrites common criminal law on the turn.  Are we now officially in LaLaLand?

“As President of the United States I intend to ensure that, in a very dangerous world, America is pursuing its national interests and vigorously contesting countries that wish to do us harm. Very simply it is called America First!”

Let us rewrite that last sentence with our brand-new knowledge from Mr.Trump’s Statement:  Very simply it is called America First and we will say what is right and what is wrong and do whatever we please about it.

Losing all decorum, Tulsi Gabbard made a quick tweet: Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not “America First.” — Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) November 21, 2018

‘A pile of lies, BS and nonsense’ says Thomas Juneau of the University of Ottawa.

So, what do we have?  Mr. Trump with this one statement sold off every principle of decency down the oil river. He usurped the task of an independent judiciary, sidelined his 17 or so spy organizations in favor of ‘independent research’ which he does not even present because it does not matter who is guilty or not. This is of course in order to keep the oil wheels of empire humming, but there is no moral guideline here if America First can be supported by any little dismemberment and murder anywhere. This makes a mockery of America First.  He sold out every honest person everywhere and may have put a final nail in the US constitution. He ignored all ethical considerations and trampled over what is right, what is lawful and the simple but clear Christian commandment: “Thou Shalt not Kill.” Every decent human value is now dependent on the oil price and military contracts. Mr. Trump continued after this Statement to congratulate the (out)House of Saud for pumping oil to lower the oil price.

Mr. Trump gave, with this one statement, the word ‘deplorable’ its proper meaning (and using her word, does not imply any support for Killary Clinton whatsoever). Even the Leaning Tower of Piza is now more morally upright.

We find ourselves in a post-constitutional, post-truth, post-ethics, post-basic-rule-of-law and post-honor world. If we do not have values, we are in the milieu of evil.  There are no good actors or heroes or Captains of freedom and democracy or decency in this story.

Mr. Trump’s world is indeed a very dangerous world, and the empire is on the brink of collapse because of internal divisions and under the leadership of a minion with no ethics. With this Statement we see that the minion is equally compromised by his relationship with Israel, as with Saudi Arabia. An empire with no values run by dictat is indeed incredibly dangerous. I trust that the rest of the world will know clearly now that values based interaction with Mr. Trump is meaningless as it is clearly demonstrated that he will justify killing anyone or dispensing with anything for dreams of a ’50’s style US spiced up with a bit of space warfare and a wall.  His quagmire has deepened, the level of respect for him has lessened once again, and he will be laughed out of the UN again and again.   His own swamp is now visible and laid bare.  The tragedy is that he is right.  From his lofty heights, it is only business.

For making that so crystal clear, we thank Mr Trump. For those that still don’t get it, this illustration serves to explain.

 

Chris Faure comments on life, geo-politics and economics.  (Marry me!  I can cook!).

%d bloggers like this: