A former aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department, Jeffrey Feltman is reported to be about to get a big job at the UN, Under Secy Genl for Political Affairs. At Jadaliyyah, Vijay Prashad says that Feltman will give the UN greater credibility with the US government, at the cost of UN credibility in the Muslim world. For Feltman applauded the crushing of the Arab spring in Bahrain and has been a ceaseless supporter of Israel and critic of Iran. The Israel lobby, globalized:
On one issue Feltman is remarkably consistent. When it comes to the Middle East, Feltman has been outspoken about the threats posed by Iran in the region. Whether in Beirut or Manama, he has publically denounced Iranian “interference” outside its own boundaries. At the same time, Feltman has generously offered US assistance to these same regimes. In other words, US interference is quite acceptable, but Iranian interference is utterly unacceptable. This might be adequate behavior for the diplomat of a country, but it is hardly the temperament for a senior UN official. It raises doubts about Feltman’s ability to be even-handed in his deliberations as a steward of the world’s political dilemmas.
Feltman’s intemperate logic was not of the distant past. It was on display in March 2012 at a Lebanese American Organization’s meeting at the Cannon Office Building in Washington, DC (as Franklin Lamb reported on this site this week). At this meeting, the former US Ambassador to Lebanon, instructed the Lebanese people as to what they must do in their next election, “The Lebanese people must join together to tell Hezbollah and its allies that the Lebanese state will no longer be hijacked for an Iranian-Syrian agenda.” The people must “use the 2013 parliamentary elections to defeat the remnants of the Syrian occupation, the pillar of which is Hezbollah.”....
A clear-eyed assessment comes from Karim Makdisi, who teaches at the American University of Beirut. Makdisi recalls Feltman’s role as Ambassador in the area, where he made himself an extremely divisive figure. Feltman pushed for UN Resolution 1559 from 2004, to disarm the Lebanese resistance, he supported the Israeli invasion in 2006, and he provided assistance to the March 14 political party against Hezbollah. In other words, Feltman actively took sides in a divided political landscape. Feltman’s appointment “would be a disaster and send exactly the wrong signal for the UN” to the region. Having recognized its weakness, the US knows that it will be the UN that takes the lead in Syria and elsewhere for the foreseeable future. Makdisi believes that in “anticipating a larger role for the UN,” the US wishes Feltman to be well-placed to “ensure that US interests are maintained as much as possible.” Whatever credibility remains with the UN will whittle in the region with this appointment.
speaking of syria…recently reported the US was mulling over supplying weapons (excuse me, that’s from memory) stepping up pressure on syria.
anyone not living under a rock is probably aware of the recent horrific massacre in homs. all the initial reports said it was the regime doing it, everyone condemned it.
so who did it?
link to slatest.slate.com
the regimes response: “blamed the deaths on “armed terrorist gangs”.”
Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdisi, Homs Massacre; Real Story.
link to youtube.com
naturally the syrian observatory said is was the regime. was it AQ?
i think the feltman appointment is as much or more about syria as it is iran.
link to bbc.co.uk
can’t figure out why syria would agree to UN observers and then carry out a big massacre.
Not Homs this time, Hula.
/can’t figure out why syria would agree to UN observers and then carry out a big massacre./
And i can’t figure out why would any liberal defend this regime,
i really don’t.
iow, you have figured it out? please explain.
One possible explanation is that
the massacre was a retaliation for this.
“Arabian network Al-Arabia presents circumstantial evidence to support the claim of Syrian rebels that they have successfully assassinated Assad’s brother-in-law, Assaf Shaukat, describing black flags of mourning flown over his home town, and a high-security Assad visit to a Damascus hospital.
The FSA announced a long list of top Syrian brass they assassinated, and the Assad regime attempted to refute this by broadcasting interviews with three of them. Damascus insists the rest of the list is also alive and well.”
They attempted poisoning this guy.
The massacre followed a few days later.
not really following your logic oleg? how does massacring civilians make retribution for Syrian rebels allegedly carrying out this unconfirmed action.
plus, it doesn’t address my question. can’t figure out why syria would agree to UN observers and then carry out a big massacre.
maybe your logic is impaired.
It’s a matter of Alawite rulers executing collective
punishment on the Sunni population for Sunni rebels/terrorist/insurgents actions.(Again this is a possible explanation
proposed by one of our military correspondents so you feel free to ignore it if you like)
Annie you seem to think that the logic of Middle Eastern male dictators
and their advisers should work in the same way as the logic of liberal Californian female ceramic artists.People are different across the world they don’t think alike and they don’t reason alike.
Further more if this action seems to you as utterly and clearly illogical that goes against the survival of the Assad regime to which i might agree
(I think he is overplaying his hand and even the Russians now look at him as a liability)
i would suggest that you read Barbara Tuchman’s
The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam
People are different across the world they don’t think alike and they don’t reason alike……utterly and clearly illogical that goes against the survival of the Assad regime
ok, then explain to me why you think it might be more logical for assad to do it than the ‘free syrian army’ or AQ?
the articles already point to a very good reason why this massacre aligns with the goals of the ‘rebels’..in that they have no use for a ceasefire. they do not want things to stabalize until they are in power. they have already used the excuse of this massacre to claim they do not want a part of the ceasefire.
so what reasons might you think of as logical as that? or are you saying it is utterly and clearly illogical that goes against the survival of the ‘free syrian army’?
I think that i don’t presume to know what goes on in Assad’s
head what he knows about the situation in the world or in Syria
i don’t know what his advisers tell him what his fears tell him
what his prejudices tell him and i don’t know how he reasons under duress.
I do know that the Alawite minority are scared sh#$less that they would
lose and get slaughtered (with good reason) and that they get desperate more and more.
That would explain the brutal retaliations.
I don’t see at the moment any bright future for the Syrians even
when they get Assad’s head, they are either heading for a long sectarian civil war or a short ethnic cleansing or genocide of the Alawites.
Not Homs this time, Hula.
you’re right. whoever named the video made a mistake and i repeated it. the voiceover and text says hula and the date indicates it was today.
of course both sides will deny doing it.
OlegR “And i can’t figure out why would any liberal defend this regime,
i really don’t”
Name one.
And we an’t figure out why would any liberal defend Netenyahu, or Sharon, or Olmert, or Barak.
RE: “A former aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department, Jeffrey Feltman is reported to be about to get a big job at the UN, Under Secy Genl for Political Affairs.” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: Good old Jeffrey “Saint Nicholas” Feltman!
SEE: How the US and Israel Hope to Destroy Hezbollah ~ Franklin Lamb, Counterpunch, 11/19/10
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to counterpunch.org
They love Feltman in the ME:
link to intifada-palestine.com
I wonder how long it will take Feltman to reopen the Israeli embassy in Cairo.
On the day it was attacked the Israelis rang Field Marshal Tantawi three times . No answer. 33 years of peace between Israel and Egypt and that is how much leverage they had.
They had to ring DC to get someone there to call the Field Marshal.
By the time the call went through the Israelis had retreated to a safe room at the back and the filing system was sequestered.
So you can put as many Ziobots in influential positions as you want but you can’t make anybody love them.
It sounds much more convincing when a report comes from “UN Officials”. Yet as we see in this article, Mr Feltman is highly biased.
Another example in the headlines right now regarding the massacre in Syria. The head of the UN Mission is Norwegian Maj Gen Robert Mood. His training since Norway has been at Nato War College, USMC University and USMC School of Advanced War Fighting.
So the reports from the UN Mission to Syria need to be seen for what they are: reports thay may be heavily biased or distorted.
do you mean reports that have come in, or that are about too? or do you think ‘we do not have the answer’ is biased?
Another Jewish Torquemada gets appointed to high office.
There have been very few Jewish Torquemadas over the last 2 millennia and there probably won’t be many over the next 2000 years. The big question is how much will survive of all the temporal power when the current structure collapses.
And how much influence does the lobby have in Asia anyway ?
Like any other parasite, once the Lobby consumes its current host, it will move onto the next victim. Who will the Lobby’s next victim be? It’s hard to say as Jews certainly don’t have the numerical or the financial advantage in places like China, something they certainly have in the U.S.. The University of Shanghai certainly has no Dershowitzes. Nor does the National People’s Congress have any Jon Kyls.
Seafoid, sure there have. Read this: link to ynetnews.com
You think Jews aren’t fully human? What about the Bey boys in Ottoman Turkey (Search the London Times, Henry Morgenthaler, 1916, letter to President Wilson). Or what’s happened to the Gazans in the last decade? Ethnicity or religion does not give anyone a pass in this regard.
Annie –
Yesterday commondreams ran a story which included reference to UN attributing responsibility for the massacre to the Syrian gvt..
I cannot find it there now (it seems they don’t archive their top of the page headline stories). Anyways, here is a similar story where the UN is effectively supporting the claims of our bombastic Secy of State:
link to myfoxdfw.com
My guess is that there is a power struggle within the UN Mission, with some reps wanting to honestly report and others eager to report anything in sync with the playbook (syria dictator massacring innoecents). Thus the importance of these UN leadership appointments.
Patrrick Cockburn has a much better aricle on Syria at today’s CD.
link to commondreams.org
which included reference to UN attributing responsibility for the massacre to the Syrian gvt..
rws, not sure if we read it the same way:
i first read about it here: link to moonofalabama.org
i have not opened the links to look at the photos. i just cannot. it is too heinous a crime. inconceivable cold blooded murder.
my first comment by the bbc..about them calling the UN while it was going on..if that is true why would the monitors stay away? i am completely not understanding that. but the UN has not confirmed that either so perhaps it is not true. the implications, if the syrian gov carried it out, and the UN was alerted and did not show up..is sever. any outcome has sever implications. i am not even in complete trust of the UN after what happened in libya.
these are desperate alarming measures to carry this out in the midst of UN observers during a ceasefire. huge international attention. horrid implications because it means it will go on and on. intentional killing/slaughter of children is always inexcusable regardless of the circumstance.
rws, re your link…
“United Nations observers have confirmed that dozens of men, women, and children were killed and hundreds more wounded in a vicious assault that involved a regime artillery and tank barrage on a residential neighborhood.
notice how it stops short of saying the regime did it? iow, they confirmed (and i read this elsewhere) the artillery was of the same as the regimes. this was before the AP/ UN update saying they didn’t know who did it.
b, @MOA:
back you your link:
‘after reports’ of an artillery bombardment by Assad, is not quite the same as saying ‘after the UN reported’ an artillery bombardment by Assad.
everything stops a little short of saying the UN said the regime did it.
It is common place among [diplomatic entities] to hold to two separate accounts of what took place. The public announcement reflects ambiguity, retractability, plausible deniability as to confirmed sources, in an effort to postpone immediate and decisive action. The actual factual record, is not announced publicly until a consensus of approval or disapproval is formed or to put in other words, the right people are lending their support. Personally, I believe the World would benefit more by the actions of leaders as opposed to the inaction of politicians.
The “right thing” to do is seldom popular or risk free. Does the UN need to declare who did it? Are (we) under the impression that private citizens have access to tanks and artillery ammunition?
As horrific as the murders of men, women and children are in Syria, Syrians killing Syrians, it’s nice to take a break from that gruesome reality and focus on the “This jewish guy, may be, about to, possibly, get a perhaps, job at the UN.” because that is definitely, more important then condemning the unilateral, dictatorial, actions of a “regime” that is killing it’s own people. [note: sarcasm: MINE]
The public announcement reflects ambiguity, retractability, plausible deniability as to confirmed sources, in an effort to postpone immediate and decisive action.
sammy, the public announcements also reflect deceit. or do you think using a photo from iraq 03 was merely a glitch/oversite?
again:
link to telegraph.co.uk
Annie -
Your quote is from the cockburn article which was quite good. I mentioned and contrasted that in my comment.
If you look at other stories, like the one I linked to, or look a the actual AP story which claims no attribution of responsiblity there is headline “UN Blames Syrian Forces for Massacre”. Some elemens of UN are trying to retain some objectivity while others just go along as Clinton and company rail against the dictator and claim their solidarity with peaceful protesters.
The massacre was probably NOT perpetrated by Syrian army. The “rebels” are the only ones who stand to gain by it. WTF they have been promised tens of millions of dollars in SALARIES! All reports indicate that while portions of population support the ‘rebels’ there are many other sectors fearful or deeply opposed to them. If there were investigators looking into this, it would be revealing to learn the sentiments of the community that was massacred … not the city but the actual community. Were they pro or anti “rebel”?
Back to the original point: the UN has been thoroughly corrupted and is sometimes used as a tool by you-know-who.
So, boiled down, UN needs to retain a Jewish Zionist as hefty leader, just to survive financially.
To add to what Annie Robbins was discussing. There has been much contradictory info reported regarding the killing of civilians (including children) in Houla in the Syrian Homs Governorate. Even the opposition says that the Syrian army was shelling Houla, indicating that there were “Free Syrian Army” fighters in Houla and the very act of the Syrian army shelling Houla means they couldn’t get into it at that time (i.e. that’s why you shell someplace if your armed enemy is located there and holed up there).
Yet the killed civilians by all accounts (whether government or opposition) appear to have mostly been killed close-up (and also by knives in most instances). How exactly did the Syrian army that was shelling the society (as the opposition and the Western mainstream media that supports them, despite their admitted al-Qaeda links link to en.wikipedia.org) then someone get in close quarters were they could supposedly be the ones responsible for stabbing people to death? Add to this that the mainstream media has discredited themselves yet again regarding this instance with a glaring “accident” made by the BBC link to telegraph.co.uk (using a photo taken by Marco di Lauro in Iraq in 2003 and claiming it was Houla, Syria yesterday)
And again those blaming the Syrian army right away are completely ignoring and trying to cover up the existence of armed extremists that have put out their own professional al-Qaeda videos online claiming countless attacks link to youtube.com
This is also the same al-Qaeda affiliated “Al-Nusra Front” and “Free Syrian Army” armed rebels that even the Vatican itself has confirmed has engaged in violent ethnic cleansing of over 90% of the Syrian Christian community of Homs, Syria. link to fides.org. Quite similar to the violent ethnic cleansing and murder of Black Libyans within Libyan by the al-Qaeda affiliated Benghazi rebels (who are heavily linked to bin Laden, Zawahiri, and the Taliban via Abdel Hakim Belhadj and the “Libyan Islamic Fighting Group” link to landdestroyer.blogspot.com ) and NO these Black Africans (either migrant workers or Black Libyans themselves) were not supposed “mercenaries” for Gaddafi that claim was refuted even by anti-Gaddafi Western organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch link to rnw.nl and link to indymedia.org.uk “Amnesty: no evidence of mass rape, mercenaries or air strikes by Libyan regime” by Patrick Cockburn
NO these Black Africans (either migrant workers or Black Libyans themselves) were not supposed “mercenaries” for Gaddafi that claim was refuted even by anti-Gaddafi Western organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights
Abdul-Rahman, have you watched the humanitarian war? Amnesty International’s credibility is in the tank as far as i am concerned.
link to laguerrehumanitaire.fr
I meant to say how could the Syrian army that everyone (government and opposition) agrees was shelling Houla (because of the presence of armed “Free Syrian Army” fighters) how could this same Syrian army that couldn’t get into Houla and was reduced to simply shelling it because of holed up “FSA” rebels in the village; how could it be these same Syrian soldiers that then supposedly got close up where they could allegedly be the ones responsible for stabbing people to death??!
And with this in mind: CUI BONO, who benefits?! The Assad governments (both father and son) have stayed in power for 40 years not by being stupid (no matter what else one thinks about them) this action clearly benefits the opposition and thus the opposition armed insurgents (“FSA”, Al-Nusra Front, and others) that everyone admits were in Houla (leading to the Syrian army shelling Houla) should be the first suspects in this incident as it clearly is being used as propaganda to call for a supposed “humanitarian intervention” again (i.e. aerial bombardment by NATO). link to en.wikipedia.org
abdul, yeah read about bbc deceit w/iraq 03 photo here: link to moonofalabama.org
Annie,
I apologize before hand for the off topic comment.
The name Abdul Rahman translates to Worshiper of the Merciful (i.e. God).
In Arabic, Abd = Worshiper (Incidentally, the name for Sunflower in Arabic means Worshiper of the Sun, because it follows the sun’s path in the sky).
AL (or “UL” when transliterated from spoken language) = of, the
Rahh-man = Merciful
In Islam, God has 99 names which describe his characteristics/traits. In this case, “Merciful” is one of those names.
That is why many Arabic names have “Abd-ul” = Worshiper of.
It’s a slightly different name structure than is common in the West where the first name is usually made up of one word. Mind you, transliteration often adds to this confusion.
End of lecture.
OT but interesting anyway Avi G.
So is the sensible contraction of Abdul Rahman as Annie wrote it (Abdul), something else, or in Arabic a name such as Abdul Rahman wouldn’t be shortened…?
Sumud,
Well, here’s the thing, the shortened version –when used — should be “Abed”, not “Abdul”.
But, the shortened version is informal/familiar. Therefore, it should only be used when one knows the person on a personal level. Otherwise, it can be misconstrued as either rude, or in some cases, racist (depending on the context).
thanks avi, i should have remembered that. susie abulhawa explained that to me once, we were discussing a character in a play..someone had named a child abdul and she informed me that would be unlikely for the same reason.
The UN should set up shop in Antarctica, so everyone stays cool and nobody can tell anyone else not to be welcome. Every country gets equal voting rights and–
Yeah, I know. When hell freezes over.
Not to be a broken record, but the UN is an outdated and useless organization that should be scrapped. And it’s run by ancient geezers who are still stuck in the 1940s and remain in their jobs mainly for the lucrative salaries and benefits.
In fact, Florida’s retirement communities are far more productive than the UN. At least in Florida they play Golf and Bingo several times a week.
I second that motion.
I think rather than scrapping it, the SC should have no members with veto power, the GA should be permitted to make resolutions binding with, say, 2/3 majorities, and all states should be required to provide armed forces to implement such resolutions. That would be a start.