Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 456 (since 2010-04-23 03:59:57)

Just doing the internet ;-)


Showing comments 456 - 401

  • Fabricated martyrdom?
  • Israeli leaders incite hatred against Palestinians and are shocked when people listen (and act)
    • Maybe the cartoon is too nice and Israeli leaders are not really shocked.

      Posted on Colonel W. Patrick Lang's blog Wednesday:

      The Golani Brigade's orders for the invasion of Gaza - jdledell

      " I can assure you the Israelis have no intention of reoccupying Gaza. They do not want the responsibility of managing the Gaza people. They will simply go in, kill as many young men(assumed to be Hamas) as possible and utterly destroy as much infrastructure and economic assets as they can. They will then withdraw and leave the people to their own devices. My nephew is a Golani captain and his unit is just outside Gaza the above is the essence of his unit's orders." jdledell

      Source: link to

      If that is true, I think that would likely mean Israeli leaders only play to be shocked - but in reality the people behave exactly as cruel and mean as desired by the Israeli leaders.

    • That reminds me of Israeli MP Ayelet Shaked, who had this to say a couple of days ago:

      ... Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there. ...

      Source: link to

      I'm off the opinion that her statement sounds pretty zionist.

  • Israeli army spokesperson responds to Mondo criticism
  • 'Washington Post' conflates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism
    • zhaomafan

      I read history. I had for example a look at what the respected German Rabbi Felix Goldmann (†1934 in Leipzig) said about Zionism in his booklet "Der Zionismus, seine Theorien, Aussichten und Wirkungen", published anonymously - for fear of retribution by zionists - under the name of "Antizionistisches Komitee Berlin" in the year 1913. Rabbi Felix Goldman laid out in great detail and very convincing that Zionism has always been a racist rithwing movement. Key quote:

      Anti-Semitism was primarily – you need not mistake or deny other moments that resonate more or less – religious hatred, and the emancipation of the Jews and their intrusion into economic life also made the economic side of Jew-hatred emerge much stronger. But the anti-Semitism of today is racial hatred! And that means a complete re-evaluation and a huge uptrend. Religious and economic anti-Semitism are more superficial nature, they are the nature and the perception of action, not the person. The racial anti-Semitism, however, is against the human person itself. It turned a forceful opposition, in which both sides seek to convince by arguments , into ​​an anti-Semitism of contempt of inferior Jews and preaches complete separation from him in all areas of culture and social life. With what success is known! If the “racial” moment has acquired a meaning in which nothing counts of everything else, merits, virtues, striving and disposition, if the Jew is outlawed, if you want to depress him into a pariah position, so it is a success, the national belief, the chauvinistic racial madness of our times, has won in diligent work.

      And this chauvinist, national racist madness is the theoretical basis, the spiritual soil of Zionism! That’s where it borrowed the specific features of it’s being and it’s effectiveness! Even the utterance of this undeniable and undisputed fact contains the most damning criticism of this pseudo messianic movement. With all clarity the consequences must be imagined of what it must mean for the nature and manifestations of Zionism that it grew up on the same marsh soil as the racial anti-Semitism, this scourge, which we Jews are suffering under so horrible. And it’s always the same water, may it now be called Aryan anti-Semitic, or may it now be colored Jewish-national that comes from the same poisoned wells, and no staining of the world can make it a healthy drink.

      If you stand on the position that the national hate speech and racial anti-Semitism is a crime against culture – and who would not – you must also condemn it’s brother in Jewish garb, the national Zionism, because it’s results will be as pernicious as those.

      I understand that Zionists tried to purge that booklets from libraries worldwide, but now in the internet age the text is available online. If you can read German, I recommend to read this booklet in full. It's an eye-opener about what the nature of the Zionist movement has been right from the beginning.

    • MHughes976

      I'ld put it different. Zionism is a child of anti-semitism. The ideology of Zionism is from the same ugly rightwing tree of racism as anti-semitism. Zionism can't exist without anti-semitism. The more real and perceived anti-semitism there is around, the more Zionism fluorishs.

      So, the basic strategy of zionism to make it's position stronger is stoking the flames of anti-semitism. The basic method zionists use for this is doing ugly things and claiming that they do them in the name of judaism, like expressed in the term the "Jewish State" - the "State of Jewish People" and so on. People who buy the lie that zionists act in the name of judaism then fall easy in the trap of affiliating themselves with anti-semitism, meaning anti-jewish racists. The logic is quite simple: if these all these ugly things zionists do are jewish, the people want to be anti-jewish. If that's the case, Zionists have been successful. When anti-semitism is on the rise, Zionism gets stronger, too, and Zionists can run successful hasbara camapigns for more support for Zionism and Aliyah.

      Other justice-minded people, those who understand that Zionism does not represent Judaism, become in the face of ugly Zionist behaviour Anti-Zionists. Zionism reacts to this danger by claiming that Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism, using the usual and common method of conflating Judaism with Zionism. So the perception of Anti-Semitism rises for many, and it's enough as a base for Zionists to run successful hasbara camapigns for more support for Zionism and Aliyah. That's what we see here in the WaPo.

      Of course there exists real native anti-semitism, too, but that makes the trick even more perfect, and builds the basis for Zionism to build on stoking anti-semitism for the sake of strengthening Israel. Sadly, many non-Zionist Jews fall also in the trap of equating Judaism and Zionism, though Jews are the ones suffering most from this mixing up two very different things. That's the basic method of Zionism, simple as that, and successful, over and over again.

  • What evidence is there that teens were abducted?
    • I think it may be interesting what the Iranian Press TV reports on these events:

      Israel minister reveals manhunt reason

      A senior Israeli official has admitted that Tel Aviv’s current manhunt in the West Bank has more objectives than finding the allegedly missing Israeli teenagers.

      Finance Minister Yair Lapid told Israeli media on Friday that the search for the three illegal settlers meant to “break” Palestinian resistance movement Hamas and its reconciliation deal with Fatah.

      Tel Aviv has accused Hamas of kidnapping the Israeli settlers, who were allegedly abducted in the occupied West Bank earlier this month.

      However, Hamas rejects the claim, saying Tel Aviv seeks to sabotage the recent reconciliation accord reached between the movement and Fatah, which led to the formation of the Palestinian national unity government. ...


      link to

  • Human rights activists are 'out front' of others and 'thank goodness they are' --Hillary Clinton
    • Is Robert Kagan an "activist"? He surely endorses Hillary Clinton, as the NY Times just got it. Quote Friday Lunch Club:

      Neocon Kagan: 'Hillary is our best hope!'

      "....But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president.“If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”..."

      Source: link to

      From my point of view, Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton should be seen as the frontrunner candidate of the Israel lobby 2016.

  • The Pope in Palestine
  • Report: Germany cancels military subsidy deal with Israel following breakdown of peace negotiations
    • ToivoS

      Do you really believe "crazed Poles" have anything similar to Israel lobby in the US? Come on!

      While it is true that Poland and Lithuania have a role in the power grab of Nazi militias in Ukraine, the fingerprints of the Israel lobby are all over there.

      Have a look at who's pulling the strings behind Ukraine's Nazi militias: Nuland, McCain, BHL, Kolomaoisky - it's all over the fingerprints of Zionist neocons.

      In Ukraine, the big game is all about disrupting western relations with Russia in the service of assumed interests of Israel. Check the many reports of Consortium news on this topic:

      link to

      link to

      link to

      Even the Chinese understand this - and published it:

      link to

      Do you really believe that the Zionist's ignoring of all the Nazi ideology of the new Ukrainian powers happens somehow accidently? To many poeple it's very clear, that Ukraine's brown revolution has strong zionist backing, and Igor Kolomoisky is Israel's pointman in Ukraine.

    • Palikari

      I love the picture! Don’t worry, Germans: you don’t like us and I don’t like you.

      So what?

      I suggest you shall advise Bibi to launch a Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions campaign against Germany. I'm sure it'll work.

      And best of all, hit Germany where it hurts most: the economy. Feel free to lobby Bibi to ask him to go to Germany's most valuable trade partner, Shanghai, where all the little Volkswagen are sold nowadays, so that Bibi will go to the central townhall in downtown Shanghai and proclaim there: "Either you do business with Israel or with the Germans, you have to decide!"

      I'm sure that would be most impressive to all Germans.

    • Thank you, Annie, for this report.

      I guess Bibi Netanyahu will not become friends with Avi Primor again.

      However, one hidden aspect likely playig a role in the story you missed: Ukraine.

      Germany is well aware, that Israel, while publicly displaying a face of complete neutrality, has indirectly via it's lobby and Israel-firsters played a big role in the crisis in Ukraine. I remember that Steinmeier, Fabius and Sikorsky signed an agreement with Yanukovich in February only to be broken a few hours later. That agreement was very much in line with German financial interests not to spoil relalations with Russia. However, as Russian ambassador Churkin famously said, it looks like somebody spoiled that European agreement. Was it those force who, like Israel-firster Kagan's wife Nuland, have deep disrespect for the Europeans?

      German politicins are well aware that Israel-firsters like Nuland, McCain & BHL and their Ukrainian tools like the Israeli-Ukrainian oligarch Kolomoisky were all pushing Ukraine into crisis to damage Russia, and they didn't care at all that conflict with Russia will cost Germany lot's of money. I can well imagine Israeli government people telling Merkel, that she shouldn't be angry about it, because her worries are only money, when higher values and friendship in the community of western values are at stake.

      Well, what's happening now could be payback time. Merkel didn't prohibit selling German subs to Israel. She just canceled subsidaries, for which, and in doing so, she, of course, has huge public backing in Germany. And it's tricky. When she is criticized, she can easily argue that canceling subsidaries has nothing to do with friendship and values, but it's only a minor dispute about money.

  • 'NYT' publishes unvarnished ADL propaganda: 93% of Palestinians are anti-Semites
    • I think this ADL piece is a good opportunity to remind all people who didn't so far to watch Yoav Shamir's great movie "Defamation." That movie explains this new ADL propagandapiece better than anything I know.

      Meanwhile Janet Yellen runs the international financial markets into the next big bubble, Muslim-haters in Germany regularly burn mosques without anybody caring for this, Shia-haters in Iraq & Pakistan bomb dozens of Shia people daily into pieces without anybody even finding it newsworthy, and of course, arab-haters in Israel kill arab people on a daily base while enjoying the full solidarity of the ADL and much of so-called civilized western world.

  • 'NYT' terms Islamic Jihad's 4 percent support-- 'new traction in Gaza'
    • By ‘positive’ I mean greater than zero. Islamic Jihad’s small but growing support in Gaza is not a welcome development for any who advocate for a secular outcome that respects human and political rights for all.

      Why? AFAIK, PIJ is non-sectarian and is committed to human and political rights for all.

    • ckg

      I got my figures from the very source Rudoren used for her article, and I actually linked them.

      In last three months there was a decline in these nonsense figures, but Rudoren used older figures to invent an uptrend of those figures, because the downtrend in latest figures had destroyed her story.

      Usind old figures to make up the story and being silent on new figures with other tendency was totally dishonest from her side.

    • There is so much nonsense in Jodi Rudoren's NYT article that it's hard to find anything to begin with. So, let me start with a few words.

      Both, PIJ and Hamas, take their ideology from the MB. What are the differences? Hamas is a political and military org, while PIJ is only a military org - and it's only aim is resistance against Israel. PIJ doesn't use it's military prowess to play hardball inside Gaza politics. While MB and Hamas have strong sectarianist elements, PIJ does not. PIJ, a largely Sunni org, therefore closely collaborates with Iran, something which MB dislikes for sectarian reasons and Israel dislikes for political reasons.

      What's worng with PIJ then, if it's not sectarian? Well, for zionists PIJs desire to abolish the perceived as unjust and racist Zionist state of Israel is certainly wrong. And even more so it's wrong for Zionists, because PIJ resists with military means while Zionists feel themselves deserved to military superiority, and PIJ isn't controlled by Israel's GCC allys, but takes it's power from the axis of resistance. Reading Jodi Rudoren's NYT piece one may only guess this. Recent Hamas & MB blunder to attack their Syrian & Iranian sponsors in Syria for sectarian reasons make PIJ an even more well-regarded partner for Iran, Syria & Hezbollah. As PIJ is not sectarian, it's easy to understand that Israel dislikes it even more for this because it can't be manipulated to attack Iran, Syria & Hezbollah. PIJ is also a very disciplinated military force focused only on liberation of Palestine, what makes it have no problem with whatever force rules Egypt. One more reason for Israel to hate it.

      Now, regarding Jodi Rudoren's claims regarding PIJs popularity.

      First, Jodi Rudoren frames the pcpsr as being run by PIJ founders director, which implies he is close to PIJ. What Jodi Rudoren doesn't tell the readers is that the pcpsr polls where made in collaboration with the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS), yes, this is the main foundation of Angela Merkel's US-friendly German gouverning party. A sentence like "polls made by pcpsr in collaboration with Germany's KAS" would sound completely different as "polls made by pollsters led by the brother of PIJ's founder."

      Second: As PIJ is not a political party trying to get political power, PIJ of course is an odd choice as a political choice for voters. PIJ as a military org pledged to be in service of whoever politically runs Palestine to defend Palestine from Israeli aggression. Just imagine a poll in the US: which party do you support: Democrats, Republicans, the greens, the National Guard or none of them? Choose one. The pcpsr poll question was similar: which party do you support: Fatah, Hamas, one fron a list of some others, PIJ or none of them? Choose one. To get an idea of how the organisation is respected or not, one would need a question like: do you think having the National Guard or PIJ is a good thing?

      Third: Cherry picking: Jodi Rudoren picks the December 2013 poll, where PIJ got for the question of the former type seeing it as competitor of Fatah and Hamas instead of a national guard serving whoever rules 4.8% in Gaza, 1.8% in the westbank and 2.9% overall in Palestine. Jodi Rudoren bases on these percentages the fantasitic story that PIJ is on the rise. However, she didn't cite the March 2014 poll with the same stupid question (likely introduced by KAS), where PIJ got 4.0% in Gaza, 0.4% in the westbank and 1.6% overall in Palestine. As the PIJ numbers declined from December 2013 to March 2014, this poll would have trashed Jodi Rudoren's whole story about rising PIJ figures.

      See for yourself:

      December 2013 poll (page, 20#66): link to

      March 2014 poll (page, 18#68): link to

      Conclusion: Jodi Rudoren's NYT story is a totally bogus fear-mongering hasbara piece not based in any reality, typically for the junk people are used to get from the paper famous for Judy Miller's fake WMD stories.

      I hope this comment may help some people to get a sense of reality about the extent of the crap the NYT publishes as reporting.

  • Mark Halperin excommunicates Rand Paul, over Israel
    • piotr

      I completely agree with you. And I would even go further: the Republicans have with Rand Paul a serious candidate who could stand up against the Israel lobby.

      What's missing is a serious candidate who could stand up against the Israel lobby in the Democratic party. Bernie Sanders? I doubt he has the guts to take on the Israel lobby. I'ld love to see Alan Grayson as a candidate - he played it really well rallying against bombing Syria and he recently also made a very sensible speech on the Crimea becoming part of Russia - but would it be enough? I doubt it.

  • 'Poof' -- Kerry blames Israel for breakdown of talks (Updated)
    • Citizen

      What Obama likely has to worry about are such figures:

      U.S. support for Israel
      U.S. general public
      22% Too supportive
      25% Not supportive enough
      41% About right
      11% Don't know
      link to

      The hard - and ugly - fact is: there is still a lot of public support for Israel in the U.S. However, truthfully assigning blame onto Israel may change that slowly, but don't expect quick results overnight.

      The art of the game is running policy with public backing by steering public opinion and than, when that's done, adopting the position. Being too quick means being vulnerable for a counter attack.

      So, all in all, I think, Kerry did it well here. He just gets more people used to the process that blame is assigned onto Israel, but he doesn't so much that he and Obama would be exposed.

  • Apathy in Ramallah as negotiations with Israel dive
    • Brenda

      "I think the Israelis will settle on the threat. But lovely pipe-dream don’t you think?"

      As it is reporting that Netanyahu shouted at Merkel I think Netanyahu is seriously underestimating Merkel. Merkel has a lot of experiences in dealing with arrogant men.

      Her own party, the CDU, is full of men who felt themselves powerful and didn't see a dispute with a girl like Merkel as something real serious. All of them are politically dead now. A similar thing happened on the European stage: Berlusconi, Sarkozy, and whatever man else felt himself powerful in the face of Merkel and behaved arrogant, all are gone. Merkel has her own way in dealing with arrogant men. When such powerful men realize that Merkel is seriously out to get them done, they are already in a hopeless position because, before Merkel tackles someone, Merkel changes the environment in a way that suits her. See Merkel's EU austerity policy as an example - I don't believe one second that she enforced austerity because she believes in it economically. I think Merkel used austerity as a tool to shoot down "unpleasant" European politicians like Berlusconi and Sarkozy. When Merkel fights against a political adversary the price for her victory may be whatever it may cost:

      link to

      A similar thing might happen to Netanyahu, especially now, after he screamed at her. It takes some time, but when Merkel's efforts kick in, they are usually very powerful. If, however, the Israelis ditch Netanyahu, and more constructive forces come to the table, it might that a compromise can be reached before the Merkel-effect takes a huge toll on Israel.

    • Brenda

      Thank you very much for your comment. It's very informative and very much on the point.

      Yes, I'm aware of Akiva Eldar's column in Al Monitor and I follow the news in diplo speak closely.

      Your analogy with Zumo ringers is quite fine. It's slow change, but it can accumulate to something very powerful. I prefer to see at as the sea where the tides change. The change is slow, when you casually look at it, you may not notice the change at all, but when looking at it over a longer time that slow change in tides may accumulate to an enormous amount. A key currency in which such diplomatic change is measured is blame. Blame is quite important and Israel is just about to get a lot of it.

      That said: the key diplomatic battleground in relations of EU and Israel will not be in Romania, but in Germany, the EU economic powerhouse with it's very special relation to Israel. That's where the change must occur when there shall be change. When Germany changes it's position on Israel the rest of the EU will likely follow.

    • Seems like today's efforts to save the talks failed.

      "Al Manar" offers this report:

      link to

      And "Times of Israel" offers this one:

      link to

      Both see "No breakthrough" just putting a bit different spin on it.

    • Have a look what Reuters says which side is to blame for the failure of the talks:

      The talks were catapulted into crisis when Israel refused to act on a previously agreed release of Palestinian prisoners unless it had assurances the Palestinians would continue negotiations beyond an initial end-April deadline.


      link to

      Reuters - which is not really known as a bastion of pro-Palestinian activism - blames Israel for the collapse of the talks!

    • Annie

      Yes, of course, the Palestinians wanted a settlement freeze all along.

      New is that Luxembourgs foreign minister Asselborn made a complete settlement freeze during a possible extension of negotiations HIS demand, HIS precondition for an extension of negotiations.

    • There is an interesting development happening in Germany and the EU. Just a couple of minutes ago Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg's foreign minister, was on state funded 1st German TV ARD - the largest and most serious German TV channel.

      Jean Asselborn declared that the negotiations are the last chance for a two state solution, they are falling apart and it's all Israel's fault, because Israel lacks the political will for a two state solution while the Palestinaians want it. Israel constructed even during the negotiations 12.000 new settlement units, and has shown thereby that Israel is not interested in negotiating a two state solution. While the Palestinians may agree to extend the negotiations by nine months, that makes only sense if their will be a complete freeze of settlement construction, because prolonged negotiations must not mean that Israel establishes more facts on the ground. If Israel doesn't want this, then there is only one alternative a one state solution, but such a state mustn't be an apartheid state. Yes, he uses the word apartheid.

      Such a critical comment regarding Israel I never heard on German TV before. For those of you able to understand German, here is a link:

      link to

      I think it's a historic moment that on German TV it is declared that Israel is guilty of not wanting peace and of running an apartheid system. And even more so it is important because Jean Asselborn is a very respected EU politician. It may well be a harbinger that serious EU action against Israel could be soon in the cards.

  • Obama's foreign policy has just one potential legacy-- Iran
    • A quic addendum to make my stance better understandable:

      The policy of the GWB admisnistration was set up to invade Iran. GWB didn't invade Iran, because after the misadventures in Afghnaistan and Iraq he realized, his US troops would get smoked up if he invaded Iran.

      The same things Obama was told by the generals: if the US invades Iran the US will lose and the US troops will get smoked up, don't do it, the US will lose.

      So, in the face of reality, Obama didn't invade Iran, but that's not worth any credit. It's just military reality. Worth a credit would be, if Obama manages to strike a peace deal with Iran, and Obama indeed made laudable inroads in that direction. However, the peace deal is so far not finally done. Real credit is due when the deal is done and stands against spoilers.

    • I more or less agree with Ahmed that ran could be a positive with the Obama presidency.

      However, I completely disagree about hanging around Obama's other policies an anonymous coat of history. Let me explain. Ahmed writes:

      And then, in 2010, the Arab revolutions began.

      But the reality, as I see it, is: in August 2010, Obama signed his "Presidential Study Directive 11" - which was the order to unleash the so-called "Arab revolutions."

      So, when someone judges the actions of Obama, I think, one should take such covert action into account, too.

      Obama signed the surge in Afghanistan, which caused some dozen thousand more ppl dead. Obama unleashed the arab spring, thereby bringing death to about 200K thousand Libyan and Syrian ppl dead. Add to this the dead American soldiers and some thousand ppl droned to death in places like Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. And, of course, add to this many more people in all these areas not killed, but maimed, in a ratio of about one to five, bringing maimed people following Obama's orders to over a million.

      Seeing all this, one might still judge that Obama has some net positive on his side, like his so far incompleted attempt to bring peace with Iran and his efforts in taking on AIPAC to resolve the I/P conflict. I tend to see it this way. The previous president GWB started even more devastating wars than Obama did, the president before, Bill Clinton, had his UN ambassador Albright saying 500.000 dead children is a price worth going after a man like Saddam Hussein and guys before him, like Nixon, LBJ and so on, where even worse.

      So, instead of lauding Obama prematurely, I would say, he just killed about 200k people, and that's better than some guys before him in the same job, but we are still waiting for the final results of the positives, like making peace with Iran or solve the IP-conflict.

      I think that would put things into perspective. And, yes, I appreciate that Obama doesn't say he will smoke up the world trying to secure the Russian base in Sevastopol.

  • Dateline, Ukraine: How the State Department 'midwives' democracy
    • Boomer

      I'm no fan of Juan Cole, however I 'ld thank him for running that important piece of Robert Parry.

      Robert Parry runs the outstanding website Consortium News, where he carries on the discussion over the "neocons" drive for regime change in Ukraine:

      link to

      For everyone interested in US foreign policy and a critical view of relations with Israel, I can highly recommend Robert Parry's Consortium News website. I find it very informative and very well informed. Robert Parry is a former AP journalist, and many people writing articales for the Consortium News website are highranking former CIA and other US government officials, most of them critical of the Israel lobby.

    • American

      Israel meddles all the time…in the ME they meddle ‘directly” … other areas of the world they ‘piggyback’ with some other power’s agenda

      I think Ukraine is a very special place for Israel. Lot's of people in Israel were actually born in Ukraine and emigrated after the collapse of the Soviet Union to Israel. But a lot of these people have still an attachment to Ukraine - see Boris Filatov, the new deputy governor of Dnepepetrovsk, who just came in from Israel, as an example. He doesn't speak Ukrainian, but he's now a leader of Ukraine's "nationalist revolution." See the RT article about him, which I quoted above.

      link to

      It's quite interesting:

      Apparently, Kiev’s new language policy affects the deputy governor personally, as all his posts on the social network are in Russian. Earlier, he was looking on Facebook for a teacher of Ukrainian. “Primarily, I’m interested in the spoken language,” Filatov wrote.

      In his earlier controversial post, the businessman stated that Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator and leader of Ukraine's Nationalist Organization, was his hero.

      “I am proud of Bandera. He is my Hero. Particularly, as I see that people are ready to die under red-and-black flags,” Filatov stated.

      One of the richest businessmen in the Dnepropetrovsk region, Filatov got his administration seat on March 4, just several days after returning to Ukraine from Israel.

      As far as I know, many of the Ukrainian people who emigranted to Israel in the last three decades are now settlers in the Westbank, and from what I understand of Israel's internals policies, the settler faction is quite influential in Israel's internal policies nowadays. So it's quite clear to me, that for these reasons Israel has a much closer relation to what's going on in Ukraine, as opposed to some more distant events, let's say, Thailand for example.

      But the bigger question is how that translates into Israel's overt and covert foreign policy.

    • LeaNder

      But concerning “betraying the US”, apart from the fact that no doubt it is always easy to construct coherent narative in a complicated mess, maybe the US “national interest” is not always aligned with Europe’s?

      Of course the US “national interest” is different from Europe's. My point is a different one. The US publicly stated it's national interest and policy is to improve relations with Europe and that's how Nuland's job was described. So, when Nuland instructed the US ambassador to Kiev to "F... the EU" - she either was betraying the US by not doing what her job was - improving the relations with Europe - or the US as a whole has secretly turned around it's own publicly stated policy by deciding to "F... the EU" instead of improving relations with Europe.

      Theories regarding “the Germans and the Jews” I find disgusting, because it uses old stereotypes instead of looking into details of who does what. Bollyns theories regarding Oleksandr Turchynov, Word of Life Center and Israel I find unnecessary far fetched. Turchynov belongs politically to the Dneprpetrovsk clan closely aligned to Timoshenko, Lazarenko and the likes. Turchynov in Kiev just appointed the Ukrainian-Israeli billionaire Ihor Kolomoyskyi as governeur of Dneprpetrovsk, and his vice governor Boris Filatov just flew in from Israel:

      link to

      So, it's quite obvious that Turchynov & some powerful ppl from Dneprpetrovsk are somehow connected to Israeli ppl.

    • Annie

      The blackwater story I would treat so far as a rumor. Russian media reported, about 300 blackwater - now called "academy" - mercenaries are in Ukraine to protect the Kiev regime. Here is a detailed discussion of the mercenary angle in the Ukrainian story in Russian:

      link to

      However, I'm not convinced. I haven't seen much hard evidence about newly arrvied blackwater mercenaries yet. A single short Youtube clip I find not enough as evidence for such a claim.

      But the snipers story, that they were shooting on police and protestors alike in Kiev to foment regime change, that I find a very significant story backed up with lot's of video evidence. Here is a good analysis showing four sniper points, some of them clearly in opposition controlled Maidan territories:

      link to

      And last not least the leaked Ashton phone call. The leaked phone call begs also a different question: why didn't Ashton make these suspicions public? She sat on them in silence for more than a week while her collegues accused Yanukovich to be without any serious doubt behind the bloodshed. The EU even sanctioned Yanukovich and his fellows based on that assumption. Russia made it clear, that it suspects the EU of knowing very well that Maidan leaders are behind the snipers shooting on protestors and police alike, and that's the reason they are so silent about it, and they do not pressure for an independent investigation. Seeing that Ashton apparently did nothing after she was informed on these suspicions by the Estonian foreign minister I find that assumption quite plausible.

    • LeaNder

      "as long as I can’t be sure that my own country or the EU for that matter is not equally active in the Ukraine, which no doubt it is"

      Germany is not as active in fomenting unrest in Ukraine as Nuland wanted to have it. Remember her instrcution to the US amb in Ukraine: F... the EU.

      And then think about that Germany was among the 3 foreign EU ministers that brokered the 21 February agreement as a peaceful way to diffuse the tensions in Ukraine. Neither the EU, the 3 oppo party leaders nor Russia and Yanukovich were really unhappy with the agreement.

      So, Russia's UN amb Churkin I quoted above asked an important question: why was the 21 Feb agreement made only to be broken hours later for a renewede push of violence? Churkin said "somebody must have been behind it being derailed, maybe those who, as we all know, expressed their strong dissatitisfaction with the work of the European Union in Ukraine." It's a clear reference to Nuland and the political faction she represents, be it called US, Neocon, Zionist or whatever.

      I think that makes it very clear that the EU and Germany were not the main driving forces in overthrowing the Ukrainian government. And it's quite logical: Germany has quite good relations to Russia, which it wants to maintain, and Germany has no interest in bailing out another southern Europe country. Germany was also not the main driving force behind the EU association agreement with Ukraine, back then, Germany had to be persuaded by US-backed Poland and Lithuania to start that new EU association program at all. However, the German government is, like the EU as a whole, under pressure from US political forces - as it was revealed in the leaked phone call of Schmid and Tombinski.

      I hope that clarifies a bit, where the most pressure to associate Ukraine to the EU comes from: it comes from the US. But there is more.

      The Nuland leak is even more revealing when one thinks about that her job description says it's her job to improve relations with Europe. So, when she orders the US amb to Ukraine to "F... the EU" - is she executing US policy - or is she betraying the US, too? I find the order to "F... the EU" not only in language inappropriate, but also in content totally incompatible with the stated US policies regarding improving relations to Europe. So, when Nuland works against what is described as her job - improving relations with Europe - whose policies is she executing, whose interests is she serving then?

      Given that her hubby Bob Kagan is an influental leader of a US pro-Israel policy network, the answer to the question, whose interests Nuland is serving, seems quite obvious to me. There is even a special term in the US to describe such behaviour: Israel firster.

    • ivri

      This your comment sounds completely different as your comment above where you compared discussing Israeli influence on US and world policies to the protocol propaganda.

      I agree with you that "there is nothing out of the ordinary here – it is all on the table and makes perfect sense" - so we should not be afraid to frankly discuss these matters of Israeli & Zionist influence on US and world policies, trying neither to exaggerate nor to underestimate it.

    • AP has now some follow up reporting on that video.

      link to

      So the new western spin is that it is likely true that one and the same snipers shot protesters and policemen in a provocation. But, so the new western spin as their guys were caught red handed in this false flag terror act to get regime change, it was of course not ordered by the opposition, but either Putin or the Interior Ministry & the SBU must have ordered the sniper provocation as pretext to clear the Maidan.


    • "They may well be in the larger boat of neo-cold-war thinking, but they hardly are the only force in play."

      You are perfectly right with this. Regarding Ukraine, there are other external forces at play than Zionists, too. Take the Polish and Lituanian anti-Russian networks as an example for this, and anti-Russian policy networks in EU/US are not all connected to Zionism, neither. Zbig for example is not at all what one would say is "a good friend of Israel" or an ardent zionist, quite the opposite. And then, of course, there are a host of internal factors at play in Ukraine's troubles, too, most of them having nothing to do with zionism. But that's not my point.

      There is evidence, that there is a quite strong zionist hand in Ukraine's current troubles, and it is largely ignored by western politicians and the western mass media. One may argue about the extent of zionist networks in Ukraine's troubles, but there is hard evidence of a more or less covert zionist angle in the story. That's my point.

      And that leads to an important question: why? Why do they do that? What's the motivation of zionist policy networks for working towards violently overthrowing the government of Ukraine?

    • ivri

      It's a fact that there is an influental Pro-Israel-Lobby at work in the US - and in other countries, too. The main Pro-Israel-Lobby group in the US is called AIPAC and it has a huge influence on US foreign policy, focusing usually on foreign policy items of Israel's concerns, and the US is the most powerful country on earth. And we have strong evidence, see the leaked call of very much pro-Israel assistant secretary Nuland, that the US was/is in the lead regarding government change in Ukraine.

      And Ukraine was also a topic on AIPACs recent policy conference. See here reporting on the JINSA-awarded US-politician John McCain blaining "Obama’s ‘feckless’ foreign policy for Ukraine crisis" for example:

      link to

      It's quite obvious to see the difference the Israel lobby's handling of encouraging protests and regime change in Iran, Libya, Syria & Ukraine, while being uninterested in other protests, like those in Thailand for example.

    • There is an argument in Ukraine going on on whether Yats is jewish or not. He denies it, so I - as someone who thinks religion is a point of confession - see no reason to dispute that claim. And anyway, I think jewish or not is absolutely not the point. Zionism and loyalty to the Israeli government is a point. To use a US term: being an Israel firster or a Ukrainian firster is a point. There are many influental jews in Ukraine, and many have affiliations to Israel, but other don't have.

      Just named governor of Dneprpetrovsk Israeli-Ukrainian billionaire Ihor Kolomoyskyi, Putin mentioned him in his presser linked by me above, is much more interesting in regard of being an Israel-firster than Yats. But other billionaires connected to the events do not have any known Israeli connections, take Poroshenko as an example, who seems to be connected to the strong anti-Russian circles in Poland.

      But even if, let's say, Israel played a major role in Ukraine's people revolution or Neonazi putsch, just like one wants to see it, and I think strong zionist links to the recent regime change in Ukraine are evident, I find Putin's question very valid. Why?

      Yanukovich's Ukraine had good relations with Israel. That's why I find Kiracofe's opinion so important to think about.

    • A flea in my ear whispers: it would be not the first time the Israeli neocon rightwing lobby runs such a strategy. Under Ford & Carter the Israeli lobby was also one of the driving forces to derail USA-SU relaxation policies.

      However, today this rightist Israeli lobby is much stronger than it was back then. So, for me the more interesting question is: will Obama and Putin anyway find ways to prevent spoiling their relations due to Ukraine?

      Russia seems to understand that angle of the events in Ukraine. See RT:

      “Those who seized power in Kiev want to sour relations between West & Russia – Lavrov”

      But does Obama understand that, too, and if so, will he want and be able to prevent it happen?

    • Thank you for bringing up this topic again. I believe the situation in Ukraine has a lot to do with the interests of extreme right wing neocon zionists.

      Putin in his presser two days ago asked:

      First of all, my assessment of what happened in Kiev and in Ukraine in general. There can only be one assessment: this was an anti-constitutional takeover, an armed seizure of power. Does anyone question this? Nobody does. There is a question here that neither I, nor my colleagues, with whom I have been discussing the situation in Ukraine a great deal over these past days, as you know – none of us can answer. The question is why was this done?

      Source: link to

      I think this question is self-evident to answer. It is not the EU driving all this, but a zionist neocon faction in the US goverment.

      Let me give some quotes:

      Quote Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State, and wife of Bob Kagan, instructing U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in a telephone call:

      "F*** the EU."

      Source: link to

      Who derailed the 21 Feb agreement?

      Quote Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin:

      "...Someone must have worked against that agreement which was singed on Ferbuary 21 with the support of three foreign ministers from the European Union. Somebody must have been behind it being derailed, maybe those who, as we all know, expressed their strong dissatitisfaction with the work of the European Union in Ukraine"

      Source: link to

      What kind of trained military guys were fighting the Ukrainian government?

      Quote JTA:

      "In Kiev, an Israeli army vet led a street-fighting unit

      ... Delta, a Ukraine-born former soldier in the Israel Defense Forces, spoke to JTA Thursday on condition of anonymity. He explained how he came to use combat skills he acquired in the Shu’alei Shimshon reconnaissance battalion of the Givati infantry brigade to rise through the ranks of Kiev’s street fighters.

      He has headed a force of 40 men and women — including several fellow IDF veterans — in violent clashes with government forces. ...

      As platoon leader, Delta says he takes orders from activists connected to Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist party that has been frequently accused of anti-Semitism..."

      Source: link to

      What could be the overall motive behind all this?

      Quote Clifford A. Kiracofe, former senior professional staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations:

      "... Western media reported the vulgar remarks concerning the EU by Victoria Nuland, who is US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

      The media refrained from reporting that Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan who is a key leader of the pro-Zionist neoconservative policy network.

      It is well known that the staunchly pro-Israel neoconservatives express deep political and cultural aversion to Russia, and promote Cold War perspectives. Such a mindset undermines US global diplomacy and US national interests. Thus Ms Nuland is the wrong person for a high US diplomatic position, critics say.

      Using the Ukraine crisis to subvert major power relations between the US and Russia and their constructive joint action in the Middle East serves Israeli interests. It helps Israel and its neoconservative allies in the US and in Europe push for unilateral US military action against Syria and Iran. ..."

      Source: link to

      And, of course, Sevastopol is the backup port for the Russian navy in the eastern mediterranean, and any trouble elsewhere allows Israel to not come as much in the world's spotlight for settelement building as it would become in other circumstances. And if the current crisis in Ukraine will lead to more "Aliya" from Ukraine, the settlement builders in Israel would likely be quite happy about that, too.

  • Thought experiment. Dateline Ukraine
    • W.Jones

      Thank you for that link. Yes, Kolesnichenko is also the PoR representative, who comments on the situation in the video I posted above. It is very obvious to me, too, that what happened in Kiev on Feb 20 was a preplanned armed provocation. The more interesting question is: who are the criminals, who did this? Kolesnichenko suggests Yatsenuyuk and Klitschko and their US/EU backers are the ones to blame primarily.

      However, I see, see my post above, a strong Zionist angle in the coup, that Kolesnichenko does not speak about.

    • Stephen Shenfield

      As there are currently very many brand new dollar bills floating in Kiev it seems to be quite clear that the US government had a huge role of paying the "protests" with lot's of brand new Dollars, but definitive proof is still missing.

      Regarding to who paid out the money, pay special attention to the fatherland MP Stepan Kubiv, who was also - besides Svoboda founder turned fatheland MP Parubi and right wing extremist Yarosh - named as one of the leaders of the right sector:

      About 50 companies contribute every day, according to Stepan Kubiv, who manages the finances and supplies at the camp. (Source)

      "It's a provocation," said Stepan Kubiv, the protesters' chief of security, on Monday. (Source)

      One of the three overseers of the Maidan, known as commandants, is Stepan Kubiv, a lawmaker in the national parliament for the pro-Western Fatherland party. On Tuesday, as the government troops surrounded the Maidan and tire fires raged along its perimeter, he got on the stage in the center of the square to explain what was at stake. “Stand up, Ukraine!” Kubiv shouted into the microphone. “Today the fate of our children and grandchildren is decided. The fate of all of us!” Then, in a hint at the bloodshed likely to ensue by morning, he told the armed men guarding what was left of the barricades, “Death to the enemies!” (Source)

      Stepan Kubiv, a commander from the Right Sector, says that they are collecting around $30,000 to $40,000 daily, but that is still not sufficient to finance operations. (Quelle)

      Stepan Kubiv, the former Kredobank head and a current member of parliament with the Batkivshchyna Party faction who worked as one of the commandants for the EuroMaidan demonstrations, was selected as governor of the National Bank of Ukraine. (Source)

      I find it interesting. Stepan Kubiv, a commander of the extremist "right sector" just became governor of the National Bank of Ukraine.

    • W.Jones

      Thank you for that link, very interesting. And no, I don't need google translator, I'm quite fluent in Russian, and understand a bit of Ukrainian, too. I googled a bit and found a video which may be related to the statement of UDAR lawmaker Victor Chumak in parliament regarding a caught sniper:

      link to

      In the video title it's said that the guy is linked to organized crime. In the video there is no weapon shown, and the guy says it's stupid to allege that he shot from his car on people, but one woman insists, that that guy just has shot on her and some of the other people seem quite convinced that he shot on people, too. But as their is not shown any weapon, that video doesn't clear much.

    • Oops, one correction. It's not the UNA-UNSO leader who fled to Britain, but the leader of Spilna sprava, another fringe Ukrainian right wing extremist group.

    • W.Jones
      Do you have a link to the source claiming an UDAR guy saying an UNA-UNSO guy was caught as sniper? I looked at Veterans Today, but couldn't find that.

      The best video I found on that topic so far is this one:

      link to

      Unfortunately it's in Russian, and I have no English translation. So let me give you a short summary. The speaker argues, that besides protesters and policemen each having batons and shields, there were at least two factions operating with real guns on Feb 20 in Kiev:

      - "protesters" encouraged to use guns and supplied by the opposition with guns
      - a Ukrainian anti-terror-force trying to take out the terrorists shooting with guns on people

      The video gives ample video evidence of - what looks like protesters - having and using real guns. But some of these armed terrorists seemed really professional, so for example they managed to escape the hotel as an Ukrainian anti-terror-unit tracked them there. So it's quite likely that kind of militarily trained commando soldiers were shooting at Maidan - and likely on both - protesters and police.

      The head of UNA-UNSO escaped from Ukraine to Britain some weeks ago, which says something on which state backs this extremist organisation. But I find it likely that real soldiers were involved in the sniper provocations and arming ordinary protesters with guns was just a method of preparing the environment for these specialized soldiers. As Israeli army veterans now come out in the open to say they led a "protester" brigade on Maidan, it would be a real possibility that there is a connection.

    • Walid
      "... very refreshing to see something else being discussed here other than evil Zionists, so far but it’s still early in the discussion ..."

      I think it would be good to discuss "evil Zionists" here - especially in the context of these coloured and violent regime changes. So let's start with this Ukrainian one.

      Quote Press TV:

      Israeli ex-officer leads Ukraine protests: Reports

      According to reports, the unnamed Israeli commands a group of 20 Ukrainian militants.

      Four other Israelis, who had previously served in the army, were recently reported to have taken part in opposition rallies in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev. ... Meanwhile, Ukrainian media said that an Israeli tycoon provides financial support to the opposition in Ukraine, adding that Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency is one of the instigators of the unrest in the country.

      It couldn't be, couldn't it? Isn't a leading protest party made up of Nazis? See here, Oleh Pankevych, the vice president of leading Ukrainian protest party Svoboda, speaking on a funeral in honor of the SS, in front of ppl dressed up completely in SS uniforms:

      link to

      Sounds too crazy that Israelis cooperate with Nazis for regime change in Ukraine to be true?

      Quote JTA:

      In Kiev, an Israeli army vet led a street-fighting unit

      ... Delta, a Ukraine-born former soldier in the Israel Defense Forces, spoke to JTA Thursday on condition of anonymity. He explained how he came to use combat skills he acquired in the Shu’alei Shimshon reconnaissance battalion of the Givati infantry brigade to rise through the ranks of Kiev’s street fighters.

      He has headed a force of 40 men and women — including several fellow IDF veterans — in violent clashes with government forces.

      ... As platoon leader, Delta says he takes orders from activists connected to Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist party that has been frequently accused of anti-Semitism and whose members have been said to have had key positions in organizing the opposition protests. ...

      But why in all hell should Israel orchestrte regime change in Ukraine, when the Yanukovich government in fact had good relations with Israel?

      Quote Clifford A. Kiracofe in Global Times:

      ... The media refrained from reporting that Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan who is a key leader of the pro-Zionist neoconservative policy network. ... Using the Ukraine crisis to subvert major power relations between the US and Russia and their constructive joint action in the Middle East serves Israeli interests. It helps Israel and its neoconservative allies in the US and in Europe push for unilateral US military action against Syria and Iran. ...

      I think discussing Israeli or Zionist orchestrated regime changes - hand in hand with Takfiris and even Nazis - in foreign countries around the world would be very appropriate here. Maybe even in an extra article.

  • EU Prez Martin Schulz wreaks havoc during speech at Knesset
    • The speech of Martin Schulz does not only get coverage, but it did also get cover - most importantly from Avi Primor, former Israeli ambassador to Germany.

      Avi Primor offered the follwing comment on Schulz speech:

      It was a very beautiful, very very good speech. That Schulz didn't use verified figures to state that Israel uses more water than Palestinians was merely a technical error. It has been a good excuse for the rightwing extremists to say that he lies. The extremists were anyway lurking and looked for any mistake. But it is totally true that Israelis serve themselves better with water than Palestinians. The angry attacks against Schulz originate in that the rightwing extremist Israelis, the settlers, the settler parties and the religious parties fear the Europeans. It's because in the EU a two state solution is wanted, and the EU can excert economic pressure in that direction.


      link to

      Having a former Israeli ambassador on Germany on his side means that any label of anti-semitism or anti-Israeli bias will not stick on Schulz.

      I might imagine that Martin Schulz even consulted Avi Primor before he gave his speech.

  • Outsource Thomas Friedman's column to India
    • Fine article. If one day I'ld see the foreign policy columns of Melkulangara Bhadrakumar printed regularly in the New York Times instead of Mr. Friedman's, I might consider the New Nork Times as a newspaper and not as an outlet of grotesque propaganda anymore.

      Currently Mr Bhadrakumar's foreign policy columns can be read at the website Strategic Cultures.

      I recommend them, and while I do not agree with all the things he writes, I find them usually a lot more informative than anything written in most western newspapers.

  • How we can oppose the Assad regime and Western intervention at the same time
    • Annie

      Thank you for your reply.

      I'll try to piece an article together, contact you via email and then we'll see further.

      It may take some days.


    • Shingo

      In place of a that I reply here in the MW comments, have a look at this fresh blog entry on Zahran Alloush and his connection to the CW attack in Ghouta:

      Zahran Alloush – Prime suspect for the CW attack in Ghouta

    • The question how many percent of the Syrian population support Bashar Assad is hypothetical, depends on how the question is asked and - in reality - it doesn't matter .

      What is undisputed is that there is a huge chunk of the Syrian population that supports Bashar Assad, personally, and the system and ideology he represents. What these people want mostly is the return of safety and stability. Bashar Al Assad is seen as a guarantor that terrorism will be defeated. If Bashar Al Assad would not stand for reelection, what is quite possible, his logical replacement I would see as someone like defense minister Fahd Jassem al-Freij, who would be seen by this constituency as guarantee that the fight against terrorism will be won, and that is what matters for this constituency. Also, Bashar Al Assad is immensely popular in the Syrian Army, and that matters a lot. If Bashar Al Assad would "go" whoever would replace him had to be acceptable for the army. Al-Freij obviously would meet this criterion.

      Why doesn't it matter how many percent in Syria support Bashar Assad? Because in a democracy it's not the percent of support what makes a president, but winning an election. Those who dislike Bashar Al Assad and the system he represents have hardly a chance in an election because they are completely divided.

      As I see it the Syrian Kurds mostly see Abdullah Öcalan as their real leader, but since he is imprisoned in Turkey, they largely unite behind PYD chairman Saleh Muslim. However, the Kurdish constituency is far too small to win a national election in Syria. If there would be a run-off ballot between, say Assad and one oppositional opponent it is far from clear that the oppositional candidate would get the Kurdish votes. It's likely fair to say that it would depend on the candidate and it's programme whether the Kurds would see him better or worse than Assad.

      And there starts the real problems for the opposition. A big chunk of the constituency of "the opposition" (TM) seems to reject democracy altogether, but wants instead an "ultra-conservative" sharia state like Saudi Arabia or the taliban emirate of Afghanistan. Their heroes are people like Abdullah Azzam and Osama Bin Laden. That chunk of the "opposition" believes in fighting jihad for overthrowing the "apostate" (their view) or tyrannical "regime", but these people, lot's of rural tribal people seem to be among them, will likely reject to vote for any candidate in any election.

      Another chunk of "the oppostion" wants a liberal democracy of a western type or a Turkish brotherhood democracy and - usually - be good friend with the US. That's the potential constituency of the SNC. That constituency likes islam, but it wold vote, but it seems far too small to win. It's main strongholds seems to be the refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan and along the borders. The current top SNC leader Ahmed Jarba is fairly unpopular, even with his own constituency. A more popular or charismatic leader like Moaz al-Khatib could have been one seems not to be in sight. Whoever as a candidate wants to win a presidential election would have to square the circle many times to tap into diffrent constituencies: be islamic enough to get the brotherhood votes and be liberal enough to get the liberal and kudish votes, be sympathetic to the secular revolutionary struggle and to the islamic jihad, and at the same time be realiable in the fight against terrorism so the army will back him if elected as president. Hassan Aboud plays a quite popular middle role between revolutionaries and jihadis right now, but as soon as he would take part in an election he would lose the jihadi support.

      I really can't see how any opposition candidate could square all these circles to beat any Baath candidate. The Baathists - be that Bashar Al Assad or someone else - have their huge constituency and will outreach to all other constituencies, to the Kurds, to the tribes, to the islamists, to the liberals and so on. The Baathists have - unlike the opposition - quite some experience in this squaring the circles exercise.

      So I see currently absolutely no chance for any oppositional candidate to win an election in Syria against the Baath party. If Bashar Al Assad runs, I find it not unlikely that he gets a much higher percentage as 70%. And the "opposition" knows that and therefore will boycott elections, so in the end Assad - if he runs - will get something like 95% and the Western liberals will scream foul.

    • lproyect

      One more: who backed the rise of Al Qaeda in Syria?

      Read here an article from August 2012 in the Wapo where figures close to Israel seemed to be very happy with Al Qaeda operating in Syria:

      link to

      The people close to Israel loved Al Qaeda in Syria, because they deemed them "good figthers."

      After Obama listed the Nusra Front as terror organisation in December 2012, when he had won the election against Netanyahu's candidate Romney, a WINEP propagandist on Al Jazeera even called it wrong. He said something like, that of course the Nusra Front are terrorists, but it was wrong to list them as such, because they are useful to overthrowing the Syrian government, and listing them as terrorists would weaken that effort.

      My conclusion: the Nusra Front got help from pro Israel forces, at least in terms of PR, but maybe also in other terms.

      But, of course, now that Al Qaeda is a major obstacle for regime change in Syria, the same pro Israel forces that lauded Al Qaeda a year and a half ago now try to blame the rise of Al Qaeda in Syria on Assad, saying things like Al Qaeda in Syria is a secret proxy of Assad.

    • lproyect

      My understanding is that Obama was orchestrating the “arab spring” in order to build up al-Qaeda in the Middle East.

      No, that seems not to have been the reasons. To me, the reasons for Obama ordering in August 2010 to unleash the "Arab Spring" seem to have been:

      - Shortly before, Obama's central foreign policy effort - which he laid out in his Cairo speech - collapsed. Peace talks on the 2 state solution between Israel and the PLO lead to nowhere. Up to then, Obama's idea was first solving the I/P-conflict and then, after this obstacle was resolved and the region would have become peaceful, he planned to "encourage" the Arab states to move in direction of democracy. After the I/P peace talks collapsed he decided to start the "democratization" of the Arab States before the I/P talks would succeed, likely in the hope, that democratic arab states would built up a good environment to make the I/P 2 state talks a success in the end, too.

      - In July at latest, the Obama administration learned that Wikileaks was in possession of many many secret US diplomatic cables. It was clear that soon the world would read in great detail about the machinations of the US "diplomacy," their support for arab dictators, their betraying of one doctator for the other and so on. The US feared, that this may lead to uncontrollable change in some arab states, like in Tunisia and Egypt, where people unfriedly to the US might come to power by a revolution or so, because these dictatorial regimes were really, really unpopular with their people. So, when Obama ordered to unleash the arab spring in August 2010, it may be argued, that the US just went one step in front of a development anyway seen as inevitable by the US. US-backed "color revolutions cum military coup d'etat" would have the potential for the US to keep it's influence in the region. Read this argument in the article I linked above on Presidential Study Directive 11:

      "We have a core interest in stability through political and economic change. The status quo is not stable," explains Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser.

      Israel and the Israel Lobby in Washington backed the order to unleash the arab spring because it got promised the "democratisation" of Libya and Syria - in other words, gettiong rid of Gaddafi and Assad, what Israel aspired for a very long time for. And then, in 2012, were already US elections, and Obama therefore had to go along with most of what Israel and the lobby wanted, and what Obama really wanted didn't play much of a role in most of the year 2012. However, Netanyahu was very angry with Obama anyway, because he hadn't already bombed Syria, so Netanyahu backed Romney in an unsuccessful bid to oust Obama. Now Obama returns the favor: the Iran deal and the Syria CW deal really enrages Netanyahu, because it will alter the strategic landscape of the middle east in favor of Iran, but Obama proceeds with that anyway. Paybacks a bitch!

      Next logical step would be that after the failure of the current 2SS I/P talks Obama declares that it was Israel's fault, and therefore there have to be consequences against Israel.

    • Danaa

      "who did perpetrate that attack"

      I find the obvious answer quite easy: the culprit was the "chemical brigade" of "Liva Islam" headed by the extremist "FSA" commander Zahran Alloush.

      If you like - and read my comments here - after hours and hours in the moderation loop - I can give you plenty of evidence that Zahran Alloush and his gangs shoud be prime suspects for that mass murder.

    • Annie

      I don't think it's Cheney’s daughter is in charge of the war against Syria.

      I think, on the political front the US guy in charge is Robert Stephen Ford. This one:

      link to

      On the military side I think the retired US Army Major General Paul E. Vallely plays a big role in the war against Syria:

      link to

      I think I don't need to stress that he is "a good friend" of Israel. Quote Wikipedia:

      Vallely is also a supporter of the Jerusalem Summit organization and an advocate of the organization's proposal to "relocate"/"resettle" Palestine and the Palestinian people to surrounding Arab countries as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to bring about the organization's belief "that one of the objectives of Israel's divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets."

      If you, the Mondo Weiss people, would like it, I would write an article for Mondo Weiss, about some of the neocon and Israeli background of that war going on in Syria. As you see in my comments above I am aware of lot's of sources regarding Syria the MSM usually like to suppress. I won't say my view, or the Syrian government's view, the Iranian and the Hezbollah view on the facts, is the only correct view, but I think, it would be useful for readers to know at least what that view is. As I see in articles and comments in MW, the view of the Iran-led axis of resistance on that conflict seems to be widely unknown here. And yes, I think, I can express myself in a way that that view would not be totally absurd and offensive to other readers, but rather give food for reason and discussion. I find it very important to build up understanding - it's a different thing than agreement - for such a view in the Palestine solidarity community. The lack of understanding for the views of the other party costs many human lives in the case of Syria.

      If you'ld like to get an article draft of mine on the topic of war in Syria and the Zionist background I see in this bloody story, please answer me in a comment here. My email is defunct due to zionist spam flooding.

Showing comments 456 - 401

Comments are closed.