The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMike Whitney Archive
Putin’s Progress in Syria Sends Kerry Scampering to the United Nations
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“It is remarkable that western leaders only remember the term ceasefire when their rebels on the ground are losing. Why didn’t they see the need for peace in Syria before the Russian operation started?”

— Iyad Khuder, Damascus-based political analyst

Imagine if the American people elected a president who was much worse than George W. Bush or Barack Obama. A real tyrant. Would that be sufficient justification for someone like Vladimir Putin to arm and train Mexican and Canadian mercenaries to invade America, kill US civilians, destroy cities and critical infrastructure, seize vital oil refineries and pipeline corridors, behead government officials and prisoners they’d captured, declare their own independent state, and do everything in their power to overthrow the elected-government in Washington?

Of course not. The question is ridiculous. It wouldn’t matter if the US president was a tyrant or not, that doesn’t justify an invasion by armed proxies from another country. And yet, this is precisely the policy that US Secretary of State John Kerry defended at the United Nations on Friday. Behind all the political blabber about a “roadmap to peace”, Kerry was tacitly defending a policy which has led to the deaths of 250,000 Syrians and the destruction of the country.

And, keep in mind, Kerry didn’t drag his case before the UN Security Council because he’s serious about a negotiated settlement or peace. That’s baloney. What Kerry wants is a resolution that will protect the groups of US-backed jihadis on the ground from the Russian-led offensive. That’s what’s really going on. The Obama administration sees the handwriting on the wall. They know that Russia is going to win the war, so they’ve settled on a plan for protecting their agents in the field. That’s why the emphasis is on a ceasefire; it’s because Kerry wants a “Timeout” so his Sunni militants can either regroup or retreat. Just take a look at this short excerpt from the UN’s summary of last Friday’s confab and you’ll see Kerry’s really up-to:

“In its first resolution to focus on the politics of ending Syria’s five-year-long war, the Security Council today gave the United Nations an enhanced role in shepherding the opposing sides to talks for a political transition, with a timetable for a ceasefire, a new constitution and elections, all under UN auspices….

(The Security Council) acknowledged the close linkage between a ceasefire and a parallel political process, with the former to come into effect as soon as the sides have begun initial steps towards a political transition under UN auspices….

The resolution asked Mr. Ban through the offices of his Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura to determine the modalities of a ceasefire and plan to support its implementation, while urging Member States, in particular members of the ISSG, to accelerate all efforts to achieve a ceasefire, including through pressing all relevant parties to adhere to one.

Emphasizing the need for a ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism, the Council asked Mr. Ban to report back to it on options with a month, and called on Member States to provide “expertise and in-kind contributions” to support such a mechanism…”

(“In first political resolution on war-torn Syria, Security Council gives UN major role in seeking peace”, UN News Centre)

See what I mean: Ceasefire, ceasefire, ceasefire. It’s all about a ceasefire. Kerry wants a ceasefire. Obama wants a ceasefire. A big part of the ruling US establishment want a ceasefire. No, not the neocons, not the liberal interventionists, and not the diehard hawks like Ash Carter at the Pentagon, but a good portion of the ruling elites who’ve been following events on the ground and who know how this thing is going to end. The smart money has already moved on to Plan B, which is why they’re now focused on cutting their losses and saving as many of “their guys” as possible. Naturally, the people who funded, armed, trained and deployed these various Sunni fighters feel responsible for their safety, so they’re going to do whatever they can to get them out. That’s where Kerry comes in. Kerry’s job was to fly to Moscow, tell Putin that Obama had changed his mind about regime change, and get the Kremlin to back Kerry’s UN resolution. The primary objective of this farce is to garner international support for designating terrorist groups as “moderates” and to move in the direction of UN-mandated ceasefire that will stop the Russian-led offensive in its tracks.

But isn’t that what everyone wants, an end to the hostilities?

Not exactly. A war against terrorists is different than a war between nation-states or a civil war. A group like Jabhat al-Nusra, for example, can’t be treated the same way as armed members of the political opposition. These are religious fanatics determined to use any means possible to achieve their goal of a fascist Islamic Caliphate. Reasoned discourse doesn’t work with people like this, they have to be killed or captured. And this is exactly what the Russian-led coalition is doing, they’re progressively mopping up the terrorist threat in Syria at great risk to themselves and their fellow-collation members Iran, Hezbollah, and the Syrian Arab Army. Kerry’s job is to throw a wrench in the anti-terror campaign to impede the coalition’s progress. And he’s willing to lie to do it. Case in point: Here’s a quote from Kerry in Moscow just last Tuesday:

“As I emphasized today, the United States and our partners are not seeking so-called “regime change,” as it is known in Syria.

Later in the day, Kerry underscored the administration’s dramatic about-face saying: “We are not trying to do a regime change. We are not engaged in a color revolution. We’re not engaged in trying to interfere in another country … We’re trying to make peace.”

Okay, so the US has given up on regime change?

Not at all. Kerry was just lying through his teeth as usual. Here’s what he said less than 24 hours later:

“Russia can’t stop the war with Assad there because Assad attracts the foreign fighters. Assad is a magnet for terrorists, because they’re coming to fight Assad. So if you want to stop the war in Syria, and we do, if you want to fight Daesh and stop the growth of terrorism, you have to deal with the problem of Assad. Now, that doesn’t mean we want to change every aspect of the government; we don’t.”

(‘US not after regime change in Syria, but Assad must go’ – Kerry to Russian TV”, RT)

Got that? So the US doesn’t support regime change, but Assad’s still got to go.

How’s that for hypocrisy? The truth is the Obama administration is just as committed to toppling Assad as ever. Kerry was just misleading Putin to get his approval for his ridiculous resolution at the UN. As a result, Assad’s name was never mentioned in the resolution which, Kerry seems to think, is a big victory for the US. But it’s not a victory, in fact, all of Russia’s demands were met in full through the passing of UN Resolution 2254 (three resolutions were passed on Friday) which reiterates all Putin’s demands dating back to the Geneva Communique’ of 2012. Assad was never mentioned in 2254 either, because naming the president wasn’t necessary to establish the conditions for 1–a transitional government, 2–outlining the terms for a new constitution and a non-Islamist Syrian state, and 3—free and fair elections to ensure the Syrian people control their own future. In 2012, the US rejected these three provisions saying that the would not agree unless Assad was excluded from participating in the transitional government. Now the US has reversed its position on Assad which means that 100 percent of Moscow’s demands have been met. UN Resolution 2254 is complete capitulation on the part of the US. It is a humiliating diplomatic defeat which no one in the media is even willing to acknowledge.

So what did Kerry gain by all his globe-trekking and backroom maneuvering?

Nothing. In fact, he gave away the farm by making a number of concessions to gain Russia’s support.

What “concessions” are we talking about?

Here’s a short list: Kerry met with Putin in Moscow on December 15. On December 16, the IMF ruled in favor of Russia in its \$3 billion claim against Ukraine. Here’s the story:

“The executive board of the International Monetary Fund has recognized Ukraine’s \$3 billion debt to Russia as official and sovereign – a status Kiev has been attempting to contest.

“In the case of the Eurobond, the Russian authorities have represented that this claim is official. The information available regarding the history of the claim supports this representation,” the IMF said in a statement.” (“IMF recognizes Ukraine’s contested \$3bn debt to Russia as sovereign “, RT)

How many strings do you think Washington had to pull to seal that deal?

Also on December 16, the US announced that it would remove its F-15 fighters stationed in Turkey immediately. Here’s the story:

Twelve U.S. Air Force F-15 fighters sent to Incirlik airbase only last month to guard Turkish airspace and hit ISIS targets in Syria were suddenly flown back Wednesday to their home base in Britain, U.S. European Command announced….

The redeployment of the fighters came amid a flurry of diplomatic and military-to-military activity in the region and with Russia …

A day before the planes left, Secretary of State John Kerry was in Moscow for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of United Nations Security Council meetings in New York Friday on Syria and U.S. efforts to ease out President Bashar al-Assad.

(“US Air Force Begins Withdrawing F-15 Fighter Jets From Turkey“,

Another coincidence?

Not likely.

Then there’s this: On December 17, Obama allowed a Russian-backed resolution to pass the UNSC unanimously that that will help uncover secret financing for ISIS and “strengthen legal measures against those doing business with terrorist groups.” According to RT:

“The resolution is the result of a joint effort by Russia and the US, which are both leading anti-IS campaigns in Syria….The key objective of the new resolution is the “enforcement of a framework to reveal and disrupt illegal financing of IS and groups related to it by means of trade in oil, artifacts, and other illegal sources.”…

The document, which is based on UN Charter Article VII and takes effect immediately, calls for members to “move vigorously and decisively to cut the flow of funds” to IS.”

UN Security Council unanimously adopts resolution targeting ISIS finances

Is that what Obama really wants, to expose the revenue streams for these extremist organizations that are clearly getting support from Washington’s main allies in the Gulf?

Probably not, but Kerry caved-in anyway hoping that his support would help him to nab the elusive ceasefire.

Finally, on December 18, Obama told Turkish President Erdogan that he wanted him to remove his troops and tanks from Iraq. Here’s the story:

“US President Barack Obama has called on his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan to withdraw his country’s troops out of Iraq and respect its integrity. In a telephone call on Friday, Obama “urged President Erdogan to take additional steps to deescalate tensions with Iraq, including by continuing to withdraw Turkish military forces.”

He also “reinforced the need for Turkey to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq,” the White House said.

A 300-strong contingent of Turkish forces backed by 20 to 25 tanks was stationed on the outskirts of the city of Mosul, the capital of Iraq’s Nineveh Province, on December 4.” (“Obama to Erdogan: Withdraw Turkish troops from Iraq“, Press TV)

(Turkey has since promised to remove more troops following Obama’s call.)

In other words, the Turkish occupation began on December 4, but Obama never responded until two days after Kerry talked with Putin in Moscow. Another coincidence?

Maybe or maybe not. In any event the US had to do some serious horse-trading to persuade Putin to take Kerry’s issue to the Security Council. (By the way, Obama knew beforehand that Turkey planned to invade Iraq, in fact, “an important Turkish official confirmed this claim by saying “all relevant countries” were informed about the deployment of the troops. See here for details.

Like we said earlier: Kerry gave away the farm to slam a deal that isn’t going to have the slightest impact on the outcome of the war. And that’s what’s so tragic about all this diplomatic tap-dancing, is that it doesn’t really change anything. Syria’s future is going to be decided on the battlefield not at the United Nations and not at the bargaining table. Washington decided that long ago when it elected to use force of arms to try to achieve its geopolitical ambitions. Now an organized opposition has emerged that is openly challenging US-backed proxies leaving Washington with just two options, fight or retreat.

It had to come to this, didn’t it? After all, if you push people hard enough, eventually they push back.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

(Republished from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: ISIS, Russia, Syria 
Hide 78 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Renoman says:

    The treachery of the USA shines through time and time again.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  2. Romanian says:

    Naturally, the people who funded, armed, trained and deployed these various Sunni fighters feel responsible for their safety, so they’re going to do whatever they can to get them out.

    This seems a bit of a reach!

    • Replies: @Matus
    , @CK
    , @Seraphim
    , @Jim Mooney
  3. attonn says:

    It’s terrible that Syria had to be destroyed (I’d rather see Saudi Arabia being leveled), but if it serves as a platform for thinning out worldwide jihadi population, then maybe something good comes out of it.

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    , @annamaria
  4. tbraton says:

    Well, since the U.S. was only able to recruit 4 or 5 “moderate” Syrian rebels after spending a half billion dollars, it shouldn’t have too hard for Kerry to extract a promise from Putin not to bomb those 4 or 5 individuals clearly marked with bright red uniforms doing jumping jacks as part of a deal to reach peace in Syria.

  5. Russia is “winning” in Syria (if one can say such a thing in the bloody mess that Syria is). Russia has managed to achieve an enormous amount in a very short time – in a war that has been dragging on for more than four years and has cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

    The Russians and Putin have shown once again that well thought out and bold decisive action wins every time against a superior opponent that is hesitant and indecisive. The key thing is that Putin is not only winning in Syria but he will extract concessions from the West on Ukraine as well. The entire war could not have been more disastrous for America and it is amazing that Nixon resigned and Clinton nearly got impeached for crimes that were nothing compared to what Obama and the American “establishment” has committed in Syria. Whether these were due to delusion and stupidity (which is to be found in limitless amounts in the Western elite these days – a few headlines in the Financial Times of London are enough to make one want to vomit) OR by a propensity for evil (i.e. Obama and Hillary were doing the bidding for the Saudis and Qataris in exchange for FAT contributions post-retirement; the Qataris and Saudis are already generous contributors to the Clinton Foundation) is an open question.

    Those who want to familiarise themselves with the monstrous evil that has been perpetrated on Syria by this Obama Administration and the West, look no further than this outstanding account:

    Had the President of a non-NATO country done this, the Western elite would be baying for his blood and asking for a trial at the Hague. The hypocrisy of the West has become so blatant that no one bats at eyelid at this evil any more.

  6. Matus says:

    Indeed. More like they want to keep them safe for future adventures.

  7. Putin hasn’t “won” anything yet. Shortly after the 13 December southward passage of a Russian sub, Erdogan closed the Straits. Are they still closed?….just let me do my every-8-hours check @ Bosphorus Naval News…yes, the Straits are still closed. No Russian warship or supply vessel has been able to move through to Syria or back to Russia for the past 12 days. That is blockade. It is an Act of War. To which Putin has yet to respond. I’m not sure how long the Russians in Syria can keep fighting w/o substantial re-supply, but the clock is ticking. Sometime soon, Putin has a decision to make: seize Constantinople and the Straits via a coup de main, or accept defeat in Syria. Meanwhile, the diplomatic smoke-throwing which Whitney thinks is so important will continue. See also: July, 1914

  8. Swede55 says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    Putin can, and probably will, ship supplies via the Baltic or Murmansk then around Spain and through the Med if the blockade continues. This is not ideal, and the blockade will have to be resolved eventually, but the Russians can still fight in Syria indefinitely without seizing Constantinople.

  9. MarkU says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    When you were doing your every-8-hours check to see if the Bosphorus is still closed, you might have considered doing an every-century-or-so place name check. As far as I am aware Constantinople (originally named Byzantium) was renamed Istanbul over a century ago. As to the notion of the Russians seizing the aforementioned city from NATO member Turkey, the word preposterous comes to mind.

  10. attonn says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    Turks haven’t closed the straights. That’s just a figment of your imagination.

  11. attonn says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    “Straits” I meant, of course.

  12. @Haxo Angmark

    Whatever it is that you are smoking, must be pretty good. As far as I am aware (not that I am some expert on naval matters), Russian ships carrying all sorts of cargo are merrily going up and down the Bosphorus.

    I have been reading a lot of stuff on this site. And the one thing that stuns me is the range of opinions of Putin that seem to mirror those of the left on Bush II back when he was in power (even if some of those leftie views on Bush were somewhat correct). Anyway, I am not Russian and will not claim to be some expert in Russia. I am in the oil business and deal with Russians regularly. I get a “sense” of Russia from my contacts – whether those represent an accurate cross section of Russians or not, I don’t know.

    Secondly, the Indian Prime Minister happens to be in Russia right now for the annual Indo-Russian summit. And the Indians have gone out of their way to try to ensure that India’s relationship with Russia doesn’t suffer (it was suffering under the previous government apparently because India started buying US weapons):

    India’s relationship with Russia is no longer as lopsided as it was during the Cold War. The Indian economy is now more than double the size of Russia’s in nominal dollars. And yet, the Indians want to maintain their close defence relationship with Russia at a time when all the Western arms manufacturers are queueing up outside India to sell their wares. What gives?

    Just my 2 cents.

  13. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    [Capitalization in comments is “shouting”—stop shouting or you’ll get trashed.]


    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  14. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Look at Kerry towering over that pathetic manlet Putin.

  15. Singh says:
    @Charles Martel

    They want to, because whether the governments know it or not rivers in Russia are named after a Persian diety who had a Vedic husband.

    Danube, Don, Deneiper, etc.

    Hints at their true origin..

    • Replies: @Regnum Nostrum
  16. RobinG says:

    Major CIA Operative in Syria, Zahran Allouch of Jeish Al Islam Killed

    “Zahran Allouch, Hanoi John’s man Friday in Syria, was killed with his brother and top leaders by Russian raid. Allouch was responsible for hitting the Russian embassy with rockets and mortars. It is a very important development. Getting rid of this son of bitch backed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the CIA is a major blow. The Russians avenge themselves…”

    Allouch and Jeish Al Islam responsible for “Rape of Aadra” and linked to the Ghouta sarin gas attack.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  17. @Anonymous

    I think you meant to say that Kerry is taller than Putin which indeed he is, very good of you to point it out.

    Meanwhile, Kerry himself has made it a point to show the entire world that he is both spineless and a mental midget to boot. I’m also quite sure that owing to the complete lack of a moral compass it is only thanks to his wearing of rubber soled shoes that Kerry isn’t spinning like a White House Press Spokesperson.

  18. @Anonymous

    Some people won’t even bother to read a post that is in all caps. It undermines the very point of posting if you think about it. Try again and I promise I’ll bother to read it.

  19. @Charles Martel

    The Indians aren’t stupid so they want to maintain a good relationship with Russia as they know USA cannot be trusted, as Renoman has accurately pointed out above.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  20. Tom Welsh says:

    Yes, I agree with attonn. What those people really want, as far as I can make out, is to protect their investment. As far as the Sunni fighters (as people) are concerned, they could all be vaporized for all their masters care. But a lot of time, money and effort went into building up those terrorist organizations, which makes them valuable assets.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  21. Sean says:

    Washington decided that long ago when it elected to use force of arms to try to achieve its geopolitical ambitions.

    If the US wanted it could have overthrown Assad with a flick of its eyebrow, let alone a push. No one is particularly interested in Syria, It is a Sunni-majority country and they have the numbers plus their Saudi co-religionists’ backing, more than sufficient to wear down anyone who tries to foist unrepresentative leaders on them. The Assads had a good run but it’s over; Syria will be ruled by Sunnis. All this is just wasted motion.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  22. annamaria says:

    American Enterprise Institute (AEI), this senile old whore has suddenly became alarmed that there are currently more jihadis in the Middle East than during the times of their beloved “Decider” (Bush the lesser has been such a darling of AEI).
    Here is something the AEI presstitutes need to be reminded of: ” The anti-Soviet jihadis were welcomed to the White House by President Ronald Reagan during a visit in 1985. Reagan… trumpeted them as “the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers.” This is when the great bulk of U.S. (CIA) aid to the Mujahadeen was going into the coffers of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a vicious warlord now aligned with the Taliban.”
    Wars of aggression have consequences.

    And who wrote the drivel about ISIS for AEI? – Mr. Marc A. Thiessen himself, the one that does not believe in facts but only in his paycheck. Thiessen was the main cheerleader for “applying Reagan doctrine in Libya.” See the results: a lot of new “moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers” in the Middle East, is not it so, Mr. Thiessen? //

  23. Rehmat says:

    The UN headquarter being inside United States and Washington being the top veto wielding power (41 for Israel so far), has always used the UN as a sanctuary.

    I remember how the US used this “privilege” to save Israeli butts in Summer 2006, after the latter failed to destroy Lebanese Hizbullah during a 54-day carpet-bombing of Lebanese cities and villages.

    In August 2010, Mohamad Bazzi, adjunct senior fellow with the powerful Zionist think tank, “Council on Foreign Relations” (headed by Obama’s senior adviser on ME, Zionist Jew Dr. Richard Haass) in an interview from Lebanon said that “the United States must eventually reach out to Hizbullah”, in order to save Israel from another bloody war. He stated that Washington would fail to create a rift between Dmascus and Tehran and that Hariri government has no muscle to control Hizbullah militia. He suggested that in order to control the power of Hizbullah, Washington must arm the Lebanese military, which now is seeking help from the Islamic Republic.

  24. annamaria says:

    “It’s terrible that Syria had to be destroyed (I’d rather see Saudi Arabia being leveled), but if it serves as a platform for thinning out worldwide jihadi population…”

    1. Would you approve the same lethal approach to dealing with you and your relatives? How would you react if somebody decides that your children need to be thinned out because their existence is extraneous?
    2. Why do we hear about the jihadis but not about the creators of the radical movement against modernity?

    Here is a great crush course in the history of relationships between the US, Russia, and jihadis:
    A spoiler: the US have been the main (if not the sole) creator of the current war between radical Islam and western world.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  25. annamaria says:
    @Tom Welsh

    ” …a lot of time, money and effort went into building up those terrorist organizations…”
    Correct. The investment has been the US-approved.

  26. Hrw-500 says:
    @Charles Martel

    It’ll be interesting to see how the Indian economy will do in 15-20 years and how the relations between India and China will go during that timelapse.

    One ZeroHedge poster in the article you mentionned, posted a link to an article from Beforeitsnews about one guy who claimed then Putin is a time traveler like John Titor. That story is also mentionned in RT and the NY Post.

  27. Avery says:

    “pathetic manlet” Putin is a genuine black belt in Judo.
    He would twist Kerry into a long pretzel before towering Kerry knew what happened.

    The same with effeminate Obama, being led around the nose by the three evil women: Samantha Power, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice. Let’s also not forget the death and destruction Sec State Killary Rodham is responsible for in Libya. Let’s not forget chickenhawk Killary, desperate to appear tough (manly ?), lying that she allegedly dodged sniper fire while visiting Bosnia.

    At least whatever Putin is doing he is doing for the benefit of Russia, and hence people of Russian Federation (that is why he has an approval rating of 80%)

    What Obama, Kerry, Power, Jarret, Rice, Killary,…….and the rest of Neocon bunch which have infested the US Government are doing is for the interests of foreign states, multi-national corporations, and sundry other non-American interests.
    Nothing these warmongers are cooking or doing is to the benefit of the American people, American taxpayer. On the contrary, we are saddled with more and more debt, higher taxes, and more dead young Americans, who died in some foreign land which was no threat to US, so these chickenhawks can grow fat.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  28. What progress? That half a dozen villages captured by Syrian army? This article is full of inaccuracies. The IMF recognition of Ukrainian debt was never in question. The problem is IMF will not force Ukraine to repay this debt by denying loans to Ukraine, because according to new rules only loans in US dollars to US allies are enforced. The loan was to be repaid on December 20 and is still due. As a matter of fact Medvedev has ordered government official to prepare a legal action in that matter. The withdrawal of US F15 was part of a regular rotation. The Turkish troops are still in Iraq and the resolution to uncover financing of ISIS is usual UN lip service. On the other hand Turkish authorities are holding and delaying Russian ships through bureaucratic procedures. It is not a blockade as such but the closest thing to a blockade. By the way I have noticed a dramatic decrease in Russian bombing raids.

  29. @Singh

    Danube does not even come close to Russia.

  30. CK says:

    It is necessary to appear to be concerned. Real concern costs, the appearance of concern is inexpensive.

  31. @Anonymous

    “Look at Kerry towering over that pathetic manlet Putin”

    One of those losers ran for office and lost to George W. Bush. The other is the leader of his country.

  32. @Regnum Nostrum

    “By the way I have noticed a dramatic decrease in Russian bombing raids.”


    ” The withdrawal of US F15 was part of a regular rotation.”

    Which is always the excuse they use. They could have kept them there but didn’t.

    “On the other hand Turkish authorities are holding and delaying Russian ships through bureaucratic procedures. It is not a blockade as such but the closest thing to a blockade”

    If it’s not an illegal blockade, it’s not a blockade.

  33. RobinG says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    “…. I have noticed a dramatic decrease in Russian bombing raids.”

    Did you notice this one?
    Major CIA Operative in Syria, Zahran Allouch of Jeish Al Islam Killed by Russians

    • Replies: @Kiza
  34. Matra says: • Website

    I really hope Mike Whitney got his most wished for gift this Christmas.

  35. Seraphim says:

    @get them out.

    And send them to Europe, Romania included? Why does the Romanian Government build the biggest mosque cum Islamic Center in South-Eastern Europe? When they answered the criticism that the number of Muslims in Romania did not justify it, the answer was that the expectation was that the numbers would increase (that was before the “refugee crisis”!), loudly denouncing the bigotry, xenophobia, fear of the famous “Other”, of the stuck in the Middle Ages Orthodox mob which don’t understand the “European values”. Although the populace devours the Suleiman TV series and all the crappy TV Turkish soapies.

    • Replies: @Romanian
  36. Seraphim says:
    @Charles Martel

    @bold decisive action wins every time against a superior opponent that is hesitant and indecisive

    It is rather overconfident, which makes them careless, than hesitant and indecisive. Overconfidence that Russia is too weak and has not the means to intervene, that Russia actually trembles in fear of the “power projection” of the biggest military in the World and all she does is bluff. And the “superior opponent” ends up believing the lies they tell to journalists.

  37. Seraphim says:
    @Charles Martel

    @What gives?

    The New multipolar World is built BRIC by BRICS.

  38. @Romanian

    True. The US has a policy of backstabbing those who supported them, if it’s in their interest. They abandoned a lot of Vietnamese hill tribes who were allies, to slaughter, when they scampered out of Vietnam. They also double-crossed the Kurds years ago.

    They don’t give a fig about saving anyone. Try to get help from the US embassy if you’re a citizen, and a “friendly” nation has arrested you on a trumped-up charge, or for smoking grass. This is just an attempt to keep Some friendly forces in the area. For instance, the UN is helping to “evacuate” ISIS soldiers who are surrounded, so they can kill and commit genocide somewhere else.

    The idea is to get as many Jihadists as possible to surrounding nations to create havoc, before the Russians simply kill them all. It’s not about “saving” anyone – it’s about putting bullets in the gun.

  39. Seraphim says:

    @Zahran Allouch of Jeish Al Islam

    Sounds almost as Jewish Al Islam.

  40. Kiza says:

    A little off-topic:
    On December 23rd, Gallup headlines “Ukrainians Disillusioned With Leadership,” and reports that “nearly nine in 10 Ukrainians (88%) say corruption is widespread in their government, and about eight in 10 (81%) see the same widespread problem in their country’s businesses.” 8% of Ukrainians now say they “have confidence … about the national government.” 17% approve of the job-performance of their President, Petro Poroshenko. While the pre-coup President, Viktor Yanukovych, was in office, 2010-2014, that figure had been averaging about 23%, and was never as low as Poroshenko’s is now.

  41. Kiza says:

    Yeah, I watched the MSM (which I rarely do). They said that the Russians did it (it appears now it was the Syrians) and that the killing of this “moderate” terrorists will now kill the peace process. Poor CIA licking the stumps of its blown-off terrorism limbs in Syria. It may have slowed this peace-process which starts every time the Western side starts losing a war. Better make peace now, or there will be more terrorism assets destroyed.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  42. Romanian says:

    I don’t understand to what you were replying and how it fits in with the Mosque, other than the larger drive at colonization Europe is experiencing. What is happening there, aside from some good old fashioned corruption, is that the Turkish Gov offered to pay for a Mosque if the gov would give the land in exchange for some land in Istanbul for an Orthodox project. It’s all very nebulous and is part of some Erdogan diplomacy drive that will see a Mosque built in Havana too.

    Our Government agreed because it’s run by toadies and lickspittles who saw a cheap chance to curry favor with our NATO allies and the Islamic world at the same time. The Mufti of the Islamic community is enthusiastic because it would improve his power and prestige, and it would send a signal to the Turco-Tatar community in Romania whose epicenter is not in Bucharest, but in Dobrogea, near the Black Sea, since Romanian vassality towards the Sublime Porte was under condition that no Mosque be built above the Danube. It’s a dwindling community, hevily secular, non-replacing, very assimilated.

    But the real stake here is the growing Arab community in Bucharest, already at 20,000 people, made up of Lebanese businessmen, people who studied in Romania during Ceausescu and became doctors or what have you, mostly Syrians and Iraqis. They’re a moneyed lot, whom the Mufti has set his eyes on. They are currently worshipping in ten legally converted spaces, so no actual Mosque with the specific architecture. The Mufti says that the new Mosque will help cut down on illegal houses of worship, where hardcore types preach in secret, based on reports by our intelligence services. 80% of our newly made persona non gratas are these preacher types. His argument is that they won’t start blowing us up if we treat them like family and allow for the construction of this nice, easy to monitor and non-extremist place of worship, rather than leave the field to the Saudi backed preachers.

    Personally, I’m against the idea on principle, given what is happening in Europe and how long we fought to keep the muezin call out of our lands and not be subjected to proselytizing. The trade for land in Istanbul is also very murky and not guaranteed to be equivalent to the prime real estate in the middle of Bucharest our idiot government is offering. The deal is most likely dead, now that the PM that advanced it is out of office and discredited. And the Romanian people have expressed Significant displeasure as well, despite their enjoyment of Turkish vacations and period drama shows. We like the Korean soaps too, and some of us even like kimchi, that doesn’t mean we’re pledging fealty to them.

    • Replies: @bunga
    , @Seraphim
  43. It is nice to have Mike Whitney on the ball and keeping us informed. The collapse of the big ticket corporate media in terms of factual reporting important news is troubling. If you read only WaPo or the NYT, you would know little of this.

    I guess my question is, if they are re-positioning their jihadist forces out of Syria, who’s next? Yemen? Europe? Africa? All the above?

  44. bunga says:

    Romania is a mess It has become source of cheap sex and organs for Israel.
    Hopefully it will be helped by teh Christo brethern because Roamains are asking to be recognized as Chrsito follower and Euroepan.

  45. Seraphim says:

    The problem is precisely that the Bucharest Mosque was paid by the Turks who did already built Mosques and large Islamic Centers in Albania, Bulgaria in their neo-Ottomaniac drive. Romanian have expressed concern that this center could become a training center for terrorists (maybe some at least from the assimilated Turco-Tatar community and use them in the noble fight of their brothers across the water against the perennial enemy from the North, which is also the perennial enemy of the Romanians as we know). The Turks are all behind their fight. And the Turks always protected the Romanians against the Moscali, didn’t they?
    I do agree that “Our Government agreed because it’s run by toadies and lickspittles who saw a cheap chance to curry favor with our NATO allies and the Islamic world at the same time”. The question remains why that useless action would carry favor with the NATO masters, who pander to the Islamic world anyway?
    Hopefully, the project is dead. But the Government was not kicked out for that reason. The people protested instead against the Orthodox Church asking for the resignation of the Patriarch!

  46. @Avery

    I can understand the frustration, even anger, at US foreign policy, at least since 9/11, which seems to charge your words but your blanket condemnation of Kerry et al. as neo-cons or neo-con influenced leads me to ask for your nuanced and focussed attention on, for example, Kerry, who may or may not have had neo-con sympathies. (I don’t know. Do you?). Kerry after all is a man with a rich wife who has another 10 months in the great and powerful office of Secretary of State. What does HE want to achieve? How does HE see the ME and the world? Is he taking orders from the President or anyone?

    Mike Whitney’s idea that the US is protecting its tools/allies/protegés in its negotiations with Putin might strike some as surprising. When did the US last pay any significant cost so it wouldn’t let down its trusting dependants? So I ask the question: is this perhaps an example of the relatively decent Kerry doing his own thing?

    • Replies: @Avery
  47. Mike Whitney. A couple of things you have written have caused me to ask, with genuine intent to learn something, why I should spend time on your articles. Maybe I will never know the length and breadth of your expertise but I found this piece informative and persuasively reasoned so I now turn hopefully to my question raised above in #47, namely whether the personal views, position and ambitions of Kerry need to be given much more weight. Might not Kerry be the sort of person who, not uniquely but not as an American government’s matter of course, takes the not-letting-down of minor allies seriously.

  48. @Kiza

    a participant at Pat Lang’s blog suggests that Israel provided intel to Russia on Alloush’s whereabouts in exchange for permission to attack in Damascus a Lebanese militant that the Israelis hate(d).

  49. @Charles Martel

    I read your well informed condemnation of Western hypocrisy with substantial agreement. It also prompts the thought that former presidents should be provided by the taxpayer with a \$100 million charitable foundation as well as the presidential library (which I presume to be a gift from taxes) but forbidden to receive in any guise donations or fees which could be seen as gifts from foreign governments or oligarchs. Yes… extend the bans to US donors too.
    One more question: how come your posts appear on my browser as if you were in my “Skip this Commenter/Commenters to Ignore” list which, for this browser on this device consists only of Rurik, 5371 and Art. It occurs to me that an algorithm used by a lesser master of coding than Ron Unz could be picking up the “art” in Martel but, otherwise, can you explain it? Any earlier or other pseudonyms? Or maybe a false email address – complying with Ron’s request for a true or false one – that is simple enough to be the same as someone else’s???

  50. Avery says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    {…. leads me to ask for your nuanced and focussed attention…}

    Sorry, I don’t do nuanced.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  51. @NoseytheDuke

    I think you are overly tendentious. An increasingly powerful country with over 1 billion relatively young people was never going to be so trusting of anyone that it would settle down as a dependant with no scope for independent action. And trust would be relative to the particular issue and what was at stake. Not many countries are big or rich enough to matter much to India. Just based on hardheaded self interest it would want to pay special attention to China, Russia, the EU, Britain and Germany in roughly that descending order after the US while Japan and Australia would get special attention because the former is economically huge and Australia has the cheapest coal and iron ore. Part of the special attention to China especially, and Russia, as well as the US, is to make sure Pakistan doesn’t get a dangerous boost from any of them.

    No, I think the Indians trust the US absolutely – always to put whatever its government thinks, crazily or sanely, is in US interests first or to do whatever someone holding the relevant lever of power wants.

  52. @Sean

    You are forgetting the objective of some players at least which is to Balkanise the ME and Syria in particular. What’s not to like – for many parties – if Assad retains a large enclave where non-Sunni feel safe and he is protected more by Russia than Iran?

    What would you bet Israel’s attitude to that would be if it could get hold of the Golan Heights permanently? Presumably a deal which preserved Assad in a diminished country would be one where he, as still part of the legal government of Syria, would sign on to that (as well as to a Kurdish state to bore it up the Turks).

    • Replies: @alexander
    , @Sean
  53. @annamaria

    Your spoiler intrigued me. I suppose it could be divided first into the question whether the question is about essential causes (like the birth of Mahomet!) with no particular moral flavour and the question whether particular decisions by US government in the last 50 years which could sensibly in the circumstances have been avoided or different have been critical to however one likes to characterise the current state of play.

    Then I suppose one could add in the omissions, including ones requiring imagination such as an enormous scholarship plan for all potential young leaders which might have been so cleverly devised that most of the fundamentalists’ current leaders would have been like the average educated Indian sophisticate….

    OK, back to reality, what are the key causes, and who is responsible? Surely the French are in part responsible if the US is? Does the overthrow of Mossadeq still count? Indeed do the Shia count?

    Shouldn’t we start with what “radical” Islam is about and therefore place principal or equal weight on what Wahabi Muslims in particular teach as the commands of Allah based on 7th century texts. And that would involve inquiring into US responsibility not only for upsetting Osama bin Laden and his likeminded militants (by American presence in Saudi Arabia inter alia) but for failing to do anything about Saudi money spreading Wahabism and dominating the Muslim education of the poor.

    I would be interested in your considered views. Would you go so far as to say that, at the time, the US shouldn’t have supported Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, should have been more discriminating in who was supported in some definable way and/or should have forseen the consequences of stirring up Islamic fighters and done something different immediately or later than what it did?

  54. alexander says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    So what you are suggesting Mr Oz, is,” if “the dismemberment of the sovereign state of Syria into a chock o block of multiple ethnic mini states, is an acceptable resolution to all…then why not go forward with it ?

    Do the Syrian people have any say in the matter?….have they had any say in the matter from the outset ?
    I suppose from your vantage point, the “Syrian people” don’t really matter very much and never really did.
    The point was always to find a way for Israel to achieve the permanent annexation of the coveted Syrian Golan Heights, and shattering the territorial integrity of Syria, through funding terror groups, and armed militias, to achieve that objective seems to have been the only way to go.

    May I ask what sort of “precedent” we are setting, in a post WWII era,if the dissolution of Syria, through armed conquest, comes to pass?

    What sort of butchery,Mr Oz, are you “not” willing to commit …to achieve your objectives?

    And if the” dismemberment” of Syria is successful…who is next ?…Iran…Russia ?

    Trying to impose the Yugoslavian model on Syria is so profoundly disingenuous, that contempt for all who aspire to it should be the order of the day.

    All Syrians…viewed themselves as Syrian…..whether Sunni, Shiite, Alawite, or Christian..if there was a surge during the Arab spring, it was toward “democracy” not dismemberment.

    Let the Syrian people decide what” they” want to do with “their” country….and shame on all others, for exposing their butchery and blood lust with such wanton abandon.

    look at what you and your ilk have done, Mr Oz,……. look at the torrents of pain, death and suffering, your crude “selfishness” has caused.

    What a disgrace to human decency you have become.

    How ashamed I am to have to say it.

  55. geokat62 says:

    I like your name and your comment, alexander.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  56. @geokat62

    I’m disappointed in you geokat62 if you read what he was purporting to reply to and still liked what he said apart from the apparently decent emotions he harbours in a confused way.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  57. @alexander

    I’m sick of replying in detail to people who are too thick, too careless or too emotional to read what they purport to reply to with enough attention to see that I simply did not espouse the views that you are attributing to me.

    You have a problem. Please don’t inflict it on an occasionally intelligent blog.

    • Replies: @alexander
  58. @alexander

    I’ll give you a little help in case you are considering a needed remedial exercise. Sean, to whom I was replying had asserted that the game was over and a Sunni takeover should be accepted as reality. That, which, in broad terms, you should have been able to pick up even without reading his comment, was what I was replying to.

    • Replies: @Sean
  59. alexander says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Hi Mr Oz,

    You are certainly most able, at any time, to put your money where your mouth is..

    ….and return the” Golan Heights” to Syria with the utmost swiftness , best intentions and” good will , you “purport” to espouse.

    Then I will be glad to offer you my most humble apologies, for ever having misconstrued your “purporting”……. to begin with.

  60. Who do you think you are replying to? Evidently someone who is in league with Israelis who could return the Golan Heights to Syria AND who appears to believe that Israel ought to return the Golan Heights to Syria now (or perhaps in the future when some conditions are met: it is hard to guess what your fantasy person might think).

    If that’s where you end up you are deranged and I am sorry you seem to have drawn geokat62 into your confused web by, presumably, expressions of good will toward men of goodwill or something mushier than I would expect to appeal to him.

  61. geokat62 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I’m disappointed in you geokat62…

    What I liked about the comment, WoP, was his introductory paragraph:

    So what you are suggesting Mr Oz, is,” if “the dismemberment of the sovereign state of Syria into a chock o block of multiple ethnic mini states, is an acceptable resolution to all…then why not go forward with it ?

    It seemed, by your initial comment, that you may have been one of “the parties” who favoured this outcome.

    If I got that wrong, I can only say that given your penchant for nuance some of us who “don’t do nuance” well, as Avery aptly put it, will inevitably misconstrue what you truly mean.

    So if you’d like to minimize the chances of this occurring again, you may want to tone down the nuance a notch or two for the less sophisticated among us, myself included, and adopt a more direct style of communicating. Just a thought…

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  62. @geokat62

    Well I suppose I could have said explicitly that I was replying to the suggestion that the Sunni were inevitably going to take over so that was the reality that should be accepted as what would happen. Not that it required appreciation of nuance to grasp what I was saying – merely a boring thoroughness in reading the relevant parts of the thread needed for precise understanding. But I’m not going to criticise anyone for not doing that – unless they clearly aim their remarks at me and misrepresent or miss my point of which I cannot accuse you.

  63. Sean says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Israel could not be displaced from the Golan, so it already has it forever . Israels ‘s problem is not external threat from puny Syria , it’s the Palestinians of the West Bank that threaten the future of Israel. Expulsion of the west bank Palestinians under cover of chaos in Jordan is a possibility, but in itself Syria is of very little interest to the Israel lobby while Iran is in one piece.

    • Replies: @alexander
    , @Sean
  64. Sean says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The Sunnis are the vast majority of the population of Syria so in a long war it is very difficult to see how they can be defeated, unless they cease to be a majority because ten million Syrian Sunnis leave for Europe, which they will if Assad ‘s forces retake the rebel areas. I don’t suggest accepting that Assad has the right to drive the majority of the Syrian population into Europe.

  65. “Assad is a magnet for terrorists.” So is anybody who isn’t a Sunni advocate of creating a medieval caliphate. Obviously Kerry’s solution is to install into power a Sunni advocate of creating a medieval caliphate. That’s exactly what we’ll get with our Syrian foreign policy.

    John Kerry is no better than his Skull & Crossbones partner, George W. Bush.

  66. @Sean

    This is not a war between Sunnis and Assad. It is a war between jihadist nutcase Sunnis and Assad. Many sensible Sunnis support Assad in this war.

    • Replies: @alexander
  67. alexander says:

    Hi Sean,

    Actually the United Nations Security Council has already recognized the Golan heights as the sovereign territory of Syria… it belongs to Syria forever…not Israel…

    Whereas in the West bank, Israel has tried to make the argument that because Palestine is not a State,as recognized by the Security Council (thanks to the US veto) it has legal room to maneuver in keeping lands it has annexed.

    Keeping the Golan through force of something Israel can do for a long time, but since acquiring territory through force is an international crime….it lacks legitimacy.

    This is why Israel,(and the neocons) have plotted so long and screamed so loud for” regime change” in Syria….not because it cares so much about Assad, it doesn’t…but because under this “pretext” it can shatter the territorial integrity of Syria through “civil war” and cleave off the Golan in the process.

    Israel will be successful in its ruthless gambit…if the final peace deal on Syria results in the dismemberment of Syria into multiple mini-states…then Israel can petition to” void” the U.N.S.C .resolution that demands the return of the Golan to Syria, on the grounds there is simply no Syria” left” to return it to.

    Do you see that Sean…or not?

  68. @Sean

    I’ve just read a very persuasive piece by George Friedman which suggests to me that the Russians intervention in Syria is partly to do with an eastern European, and specifically Ukrainian, settlement which would confirm Russia’s hold on Crimea, provide for some autonomy in Eastern Ukraine and keep a West leaning Ukraine out of NATO (and without NATO forces there).

    However right that may be it occurs to me that part of the deal could include a secure Russia protected Assad ruled enclave in western Syria. Would that not suit several interested parties? Who would have the strongest objections and why?

    I would nominate Turkey as the big objector. Maybe face could be saved in some places by Assad being forced to “democratic” election though even that would matter less in DC after Obama’s team departs.

    Does that have to involve expulsions of Sunni? And, while I’m posing questions to someone who may have a reasoned view, where do you think better legal title to the Golan Heights would rank in Israel’s order of priorities, and with what weight?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz 2
  69. @Wizard of Oz 2

    I’ve just had to change my pseudonym because, using a different browser for the last reply I was told that the details of name and identifying email were already taken and I was invited to Return to Commentary. When I did the pro forma details were as usual but I added a 2 to the name and it worked. Previously such episodes with Opel browser had cost me everything I had typed.

  70. alexander says:
    @Unz Reader

    Dear Unz Reader,

    I think you are a 100 % right on that score….I watched a round table discussion of over 100 people discussing Syria in 2010 ,historians, diplomats , ambassadors, and writers…and a middle aged women got up.and what she said seemed to make the most sense of anyone that whole night. She said to the group she was Syrian,of ,I believe, Sunni extraction, she was honest in saying she didn’t really like Assad that much…but that she much preferred him staying in power…than having happen in Syria…what happened in Iraq.

    I also listened to testimony of a US marine,in 2015..who had served numerous tours in Iraq…and took one of his leaves to go to Syria….he remarked that it was a wonderful country, secular and reasonably free…he said there were Sunnis , Christians and Shiites, all over the place…and everyone was warm and friendly….and seemed to get along just fine….it was so pleasant in fact, he kept an apartment there after his last tour..He lived in Texas, but would go back a few times a year, because he loved it so much…that was before the war broke out…he was heartbroken ,absolutely heartbroken at the amount of carnage and destruction caused by the horrific war…and what a tragedy it was that it was happening.

    I think he is right…Its an absolute tragedy……I am very sad for it.

    • Replies: @Unz Reader
  71. Sean says:
    @Sean If the US and Israel wanted to assist the rebels — which they do not — they can do it, even without military intervention. For example, if Israel were to mobilise forces on the Golan Heights (of course, it’s the Syrian Golan heights, but by now the world more or less tolerates or accepts Israel’s illegal occupation,) If they would just do that, It would compel Assad to move forces to the South which would relieve pressure against the rebels. But there’s no hint even of that. They’re also not giving humanitarian aid to the huge number of suffering refugees, not doing all kinds of simple things that they could do.

    Not doing them is probably a mistake for Israel with could benifit from destabilizing Jordan. The Palestinians will have to be expelled eventually, or Israel will have no option but to become an apartheid state.

    • Replies: @alexander
  72. alexander says:


    Your statement:

    “The Palestinians will have to be expelled eventually, or Israel will have no option but to become an apartheid state.”

    You are implying that Israel has already foreclosed on the possibility of the internationally mandated two state solution…and thus has been successful in” the holocaust of Palestine”as a viable national entity.
    So Israel, through its “lebensraum-ing “of much of the Palestinian territories has effectively “exterminated” the state of Palestine.

    The problem, now, as you articulate, is demographic in nature. Were Israel to grant citizenship to the millions of Palestinians living under occupation,( into “Greater Israel”), they would become, in short order, the largest ethnic majority in what is supposed to be a Jewish state.
    Were that to occur Israel, as a viable democracy ,would cease to be a Jewish state and become (ethnically) Palestinian.

    Greater Israel, could “warehouse” the Palestinians, denying them citizenship and voting rights…but that would make Israel, truly apartheid in nature, and subject to international sanctions, like South Africa.

    The solution, then, for greater Israel,( as you point out)would be the expulsion of millions of Palestinians out of the greater state.They could ,perhaps, be absorbed into Jordan..and/or Egypt.

    The problem there, is absent the “willingness” of Palestinians to leave, their expulsion would reconstitute their status as” refugees” ,granting them the international” right of return” to their homeland, which is immutable.

    Greater Israel, would succeed in altering, through” expulsion”, the demographic reality in favor of its Jewry….but it would lack all legitimacy, having done so,on the international stage.

    Thus, greater Israel, is faced, most ironically, with the very real prospect of initiating its own “final solution”……the extermination of millions of Palestinians,… enough(any way) to ensure a substantive Jewish majority within its greater state.

    Israel can only be successful in this endeavor, if it cloaks its” final solution” in the argument of “self defense.”, which it has, in fact, begun to do, in its” wars” on Gaza .

    Israel, through its highly effective “Hasbara” techniques, can utilize the ‘War on Terror”, as a tool to designate ever more and more “Palestinians” as” terrorists”..and continue to cull the herd, that way…..

    One would imagine, this being the case, ISIS, the most hated terror group” de jour”, would mysteriously” pop up” in key area’s of Palestine,where Israel seeks to initiate strategic exterminations.

    Israel has been most successful in its master plan, by utilizing ,”self -defense “whenever it wishes to initiate a mass extermination, and the “war on terror” for initiating its continuous smaller ones.

    The problem with doing this, which has clearly emerged in the death of the “peace process”, is, absent a viable “peace plan” of its own, Israel can only be viewed with time, as the aggressor in the equation….thus accept the eventuality its Hasbara will fail to mollify those most sympathetic to its cause, and expose to all, its own ‘terroristic” nature, as the true catalyst in the conflict.

  73. @alexander

    I agree. What has happened to Syria is a tragedy of the highest order.

  74. @Anonymous

    If he’s the same anonymous with which I am familiar, his comment was an attempt at satire

  75. Rehmat says:

    Every time someone mentions HARVARD, I cannot stop thinking about pedophile professor Alan Dershowitz.

    On January 12, 2016, in an interview at Fox and Friends, Dershowitz said: “I know when I speak at college campuses in favor of Israel, I need armed guards protecting me from radical leftist students who would use physical intimidation. They won’t give me a safe space. They won’t give pro-Israel students a safe space, they won’t give Christian students a safe space.”

    Wow, wow, is this Israeli clown wants us to believe that Harvard and other Ivy League Campuses are run by Muslims and not by Jews?

    Alan Dershowitz, who is whining for safe space for pro-Israeli students, was responsible for destroying academic careers of several Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars for not agreeing with Dershowitz’s cynical Zionist and pedophile beliefs. His victims include Dr. Norman Finkelstein (DePaul). The Zionist rag even didn’t spare Norman’s mother Maryla Husyt, a Holocaust survivor. After publication of Finkelstein’s book, The Holocaust Industry, Dershowitz called her Nazi collaborator, for saying: Jews don’t have monopoly over Holocaust. Many other people, American Indians, African slaves, etc. have faced their Holocausts, and now Palestinian people are going through their Holocaust.

    Last year Virginia Roberts accused Dershowitz of rape. She claimed that Dershowitz’s client and convicted pedophile Jewish billionaire Jeffrey Epstein trained her as sex-slave at age 15. Dershowitz defended himself the same way he defends Israeli sexually abusing Palestinian youth. He called Roberts “liar” and “prostitute”.

    Earlier, Dershowitz got confessed pedophile and child rapist Roman Polanski (Jewish) of the hook……

  76. @Regnum Nostrum

    By the way I have noticed a dramatic decrease in Russian bombing raids.

    Worthwhile targets are becoming harder and harder to find.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mike Whitney Comments via RSS