Netanyahu and Reality
By ROBERT FANTINA | CounterPunch | June 5, 2015
This writer has commented before on the increasing desperation of Israel to cling to some sense of legitimacy, as it continues policies of racism, oppression and genocide. Any nation indulging in such horrific practices, as Israel does against any and all minorities within its internationally-questioned borders, and of Palestinians outside those borders, cannot expect to be a respected member of the global community.
This desperation was in full evidence on May 30, when Israeli Prime Murderer Benjamin Netanyahu spoke against those that he said were attempting to sully the good name of Israel, for nefarious purposes of their own. The Prime Murderer made some amazing statements in his speech. Just a few lines will show the Israeli departure from reality that began in 1947, but has reached astronomical levels today. Said Mr. Netanyahu:
“We are in the midst of a great struggle being waged against the state of Israel, an international campaign to blacken its name.
“It is not connected to our actions; it is connected to our very existence. It does not matter what we do; it matters what we symbolize and what we are.
“I think that it is important to understand that these things do not stem from the fact that if only we were nicer or a little more generous — we are very generous, we have made many offers, we have made many concessions — that anything would change because this campaign to delegitimize Israel entails something much deeper that is being directed at us and seeks to deny our very right to live here”.
Can we put on our thinking caps and dissect these few sentences?
“We are in the midst of a great struggle being waged against the state of Israel, an international campaign to blacken its name.”
No, Mr. Netanyahu, the campaign isn’t to blacken the name of Israel, it is merely to expose the blackness of that name. Publicizing crimes against humanity helps to do so; by committing those crimes for 60 years, Israel’s name is already ‘blackened’.
“It is not connected to our actions; it is connected to our very existence. It does not matter what we do; it matters what we symbolize and what we are.”
One has to take a moment to wonder about the color of the sky on the planet on which Mr. Netanyahu apparently lives. Do Israelis really buy this? Is there anyone on planet Earth who does not know that the increasing ostracism of Israel is based entirely on its actions? We will counsel the Prime Murder yet again: it does indeed matter what you do. Bulldozing homes, killing innocent people, calling them less than human, saying they should all be killed – these are objectionable to the vast number of global citizens who are now taking notice.
In a sense, Mr. Netanyahu does make a point: Israel today symbolizes injustice, genocide, cruelty and barbarism, and is the face of apartheid. So, in part, it is what Israel has come to symbolize that motivates people to boycott it.
“I think that it is important to understand that these things do not stem from the fact that if only we were nicer or a little more generous — we are very generous, we have made many offers, we have made many concessions — that anything would change because this campaign to delegitimize Israel entails something much deeper that is being directed at us and seeks to deny our very right to live here”.
It is this final statement that leads this writer to conclude that Mr. Netanyahu and his minions in Israel and the United States Congress are in need of significant psychological assistance. Let’s look at the ‘niceness’ and ‘generosity’ of Israel:
* Bulldozing the homes of Palestinians, to make room for illegal settlements;
* Displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in order to make room for illegal Israeli settlers;
* Shooting Palestinian teenagers in the back, crimes captured on video camera and shown around the world;
* Establishing checkpoints, at which Israeli soldiers even prevent women in labor from passing, as they are attempting to rush to the hospital, not to mention preventing tens of thousands of people from getting to work, school, stores, or simply visiting friends or family;
* Carpet-bombing the Gaza Strip;
* Blockading the Gaza Strip, preventing building materials and other basic supplies from entering;
* Shooting fishermen off Gaza’s coast;
* Discriminating against Africans and Arabs who live within Israel’s dubious borders;
* Building roads that only Israelis can use; if such a road crosses a Palestinian road, Palestinians are not able to drive across it.
The list goes on, but in the interest of time and space, we will allow this to suffice.
And now let us take a peek at the ‘many concessions’ Israel has made:
Will negotiate with Palestine, while continuing land theft and settlement construction.
Regarding the statement that the ever-growing boycott of Israel is to ‘deny our very right to live here,’ is it not true that Israel denies Palestinians their very right to live on their ancestral lands? Oh, but we must remember that members of Mr. Netanyahu’s new cabinet have said that Palestinians are less than human, so in the context of Israeli thought, they can be discounted.
The U.S. government is poised to greatly increase its foreign aid to Israel, apparently to soothe the fractured Israeli ego, an injury caused by the U.S. and other countries participating in peaceful negotiations with Iran. This will provide Israel with more weaponry to kill Palestinians, which will only serve to increase the boycott. This effort has not slowed down. On June 2, the seventh annual, so-called Israel Defense Expo, carried on without the usual participation of some European countries, most notably the United Kingdom and France. Israeli Foreign Ministry officials have been quoted as saying that there is a ‘diplomatic tsunami’ hitting that apartheid nation, and fending it off will be a very difficult task.
In reality, the task is not difficult. If Israel were to adhere to international law, the boycott would end, and Israel could take its place alongside Palestine in the world community. But that is not the plan: Israel’s goal is the complete annihilation of Palestine, and although it is increasingly clear to the world that that will not be accomplished, Israel will not easily accept that fact. So boycotts by individuals, universities, performers and nations will have to clarify it for Israel, as they did for South Africa a generation ago. The U.S. may be left behind, but Palestine will be free. And if it takes the delegitimization of Israel to do it, so be it. The decision is Israel’s, and it appears from its behaviors that that is its choice.
Robert Fantina’s latest book is Empire, Racism and Genocide: a History of US Foreign Policy (Red Pill Press).
G7 Summit Without Russia: Problem for the West, But Not for the Kremlin
Sputnik – 05.06.2015
Moscow’s absence at the G7 summit in Germany does not mean that Russia is politically isolated in the world. Moreover, it helps the Kremlin to pursue a more independent policy, die Zeit wrote.
The proximity to the Western world is no longer an absolute value for modern Russia, the German newspaper wrote.
Moscow seeks to follow a sovereign foreign policy and is not willing to impose itself on Western countries, the article said, referring to the upcoming G7 summit, which will be held in Germany on Sunday without the participation of the Russian leader.
“Will the Russian President sit on Sunday in the Kremlin and grieve about the fact that the G7 leaders met in the Elmau castle without him? Unlikely. The days when the Russian President wanted to just stand next to his Western colleagues are over,” the newspaper wrote.
According to die Zeit, for Russia, the Western world has lost its ‘absolute brilliance’ that was so evident after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia became disillusioned with Europe and the United States due to their hypocrisy and indecisive policies, the article said.
Russia’s current position has nothing to do with the world’s isolation, the newspaper wrote. European leaders, including Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, regularly visit Russia. In a few days, Russian president Vladimir Putin is expected to visit the Russian pavilion at the international exhibition “EXPO-2015” in Italy. In the Vatican, he will have a private meeting with Pope Francis.
“Let’s agree that loneliness and isolation look a little bit different,” the article said ironically.
Russia is also expanding its contacts within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and maintains fruitful cooperation with Asian countries. With this regard, the Kremlin’s non-participation in the G7 summit is just a little episode in its foreign policy activities, Die Zeit noted.
The newspaper also stressed that the current situation could be beneficial for the Kremlin as the latter will gain more freedom in conducting its own independent policy.
Russia’s law on undesirable foreign NGOs and the ethics of international activism
By Aleksandar JOKIC | Oriental Review | June 5, 2015
The decision by Russian President Vladimir Putin to sign a bill that allows “authorities to prosecute foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or firms designated as ‘undesirable’ on national security grounds” is bound to receive a hostile reception in the West. Already Amnesty International declared that the new law will “snatch away the space for dissenting views and independent civil society activism,” while Human Rights Watch more hysterically stated that the law aims at “squeezing the very life out of Russian civil society,” and the State Department harshly characterized it in a characteristically over the top fashion “as a further example of the Russian government’s growing crackdown on independent voices and intentional steps to isolate the Russian people from the world.”
Dramatic statements aside, we may want to ask, quite separately from the case with this Russian law, what could be considered as proper boundaries for engagement by international activists. In other words, the increasing power of NGOs in the post-Cold War period, manifest in their ever mounting number in operation and handling of ever more substantial quantities of money, raises questions about the roles and responsibilities of these new global, non-state actors. In particular, there is the question of developing an ethics of international activism that would facilitate moral assessments of the endeavors by agents operating in countries other than their own.
Elsewhere I have argued in favor of developing an ethics of international activism, which involved a process of formulating a series of constraints on what would constitute morally permissible agency in the context that includes delivering services abroad, directly or indirectly. In elaborating these ethical constraints I relied on the concept of “force multiplier.” The content of this idea and its official applications have explanatory importance in considering the correlation between post-Cold War phenomenal growth in the number of international NGOs and the emergence of the U.S. as the sole, unchallenged super-power ushering in the new “unipolar” world.
The fully developed proposal for an “ethics of international activism” consists of four constraints on morally permissible international activism: (C1) The Professionalism Constraint; (C2); The Integrity Constraint; (C3) The Respect for Sovereignty Constraint; and (C4) The Humility Constraint. As soon as these constraints are understood and correctly analyzed, an overarching principle emerges helping us realize that local activism must enjoy normative primacy (in all three normative spheres: moral, legal, and political) over international activism. At the same time, this gives us an idea of how to conceive of what could constitute legitimate international activism, that is one that respects the primacy of local activism.
Before introducing in a bit greater detail the elements of this ethics of international activism let us define “international activists” as altruists attracted by causes that originate in foreign lands. By calling them “altruists” I do not intend to prejudge the actions of international activists as necessarily morally good; I simply mean to indicate that they are ostensibly acting out of concern for the welfare of others, in this case those others are foreigners. We can make further progress in delineating more exactly who the “international activists” are by making more precise this notion of “causes that originate in foreign lands.” Most frequently those causes are expressed in terms of global protection, and respect for human rights. Thus, Amnesty International defines itself as a “global movement” of people “campaigning for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all,” while Human Rights Watch claims that it “works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all.”
We can achieve additional clarity by realizing that governments can also show interest in those same causes expressed in terms of human rights, but we would not count government administrators, operating in their official capacities, among “international activists”. Thus, The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor of the U.S. government, states that “protecting human rights around the world [is] central to U.S. foreign policy,” yet we would not consider State Department officials “international activists”. This is why organizations that want to count as groupings of international activists are quick to assert their independence. Consequently, international activists are not meant to be government officials, ideologues, corporate lobbyists, or missionaries on behalf of any religion; in fact, international activists are supposed to operate independently of any government, ideology, corporation, and religion. In the first instance, this then poses strong constraints on how to construe an ethics of international activism starting with The Professionalism Constraints:
(C1) It is considered morally impermissible for international activists to act on behalf of any government, ideology, corporation, or religion.
It stands to reason that if a person is genuinely motivated by the welfare of others from a country other than her own, then she must not be acting on behalf of her (or any other) government, should not promote any ideology (be it political, economic or otherwise), nor proselytize in favor of a religion. Thus, for example, international activists must not propagate in favor of a regime change in a country where such policy is pursued by, say, the U.S. government; they must not engage in promoting the economic ideology of free market and privatization in, say, a country with the socialist economic system (or any other); or attempt to convert, say, local Muslim population to Christianity.
In order to introduce the second constraint the notion of force multiplier must be introduced; it is a military term, defined as follows in The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military:
A capability that, when added to and employed by a combat force, significantly increases the combat potential of that force and thus enhances the probability of successful mission accomplishment.
It is not difficult to document that this military term is widely used by U.S. officials, including a Democratic U.S. President, right wing think tankers, various academics, and even international activists themselves, suggesting that the Western NGOs do and should serve as force multipliers for U.S. armed forces in the variety of theaters of operations where the latter are continuously active. This, however, stands in direct opposition to the definitional component of “international activism” as agency that stems from concern for the welfare of others in foreign countries. The integrity of their actions is threatened if international activists operate in concert with U.S. armed forces or for the sake of U.S. government while ostensibly engaged to address basic needs of less fortunate humans in other countries. Consequently, an explicit moral constraint—The Integrity Constraint—defining the way international activists can satisfy the requirements of minimal integrity of their actions is necessary:
(C2) It is considered morally impermissible for international activists to serve as force multipliers for U.S. (or any other) armed forces or U.S. (or any other) government.
It is perhaps clear that The Integrity Constraint is already implied by The Professionalism Constraint. However, given the aggressive push by the U.S. officials to employ international activists as force multipliers, the impact of the phenomenon of revolving doors between government service and positions within human rights organizations, and the apparent happy acquiescence by many international activists to their newly given (post-Cold War) role, it is important to make The Integrity Constraint explicit.
Once human rights become indistinguishable from official political ideology, once human rights culture is usurped by the dominant powers, and once the argument for human rights is turned into an apologia for the imperial project by the sole super power while this transformation is not protested but supported by international activists in the Western countries, this gives us a clear sense of international activists serving as force multipliers or being “belligerent altruists”. However, the tension captured by this term must be resolved, and this brings us to the next constraint on the morally permissible character of international activism. In order to accomplish this we must remove the belligerent character of the post-Cold War practice by human rights organizations. We must counsel a return to the human rights discourse that respects sovereignty of nation states and permits at most “soft” intervention while opposing all attempts at decriminalizing aggression (through “humanitarian intervention,” R2P, “war on terrorism,” or similar constructs) and making sure that activists are not aiding and abetting aggression under any circumstances. This could be called Respect for Sovereignty Constraint:
(C3) It is considered morally impermissible for international activists to disrespect sovereignty, aid and abet aggression, and engage in anything beyond “soft” intervention.
To advance further with our goal of developing an ethics of international activism that would facilitate moral assessments of their endeavors we may engage in moral phenomenology of international activism. Moral phenomenology is the study of the experiential aspects of moral life. By investigating “what it is like” to undergo mental states that instantiate phenomenal properties when, say, judging that one “must engage” we might be able to formulate further moral constraints that can guide our moral evaluation of what international activists do. The idea is that the construction of constraints on moral permissibility of acting qua international activist can be aided via compelling phenomenological descriptions of specific experiential episodes.
By paying attention to moral phenomenology of activism a picture emerges according to which, for the activist, given the axiological nature of the cause for which she is fighting, all that is required to set her on the right path is that she be sincere and firm in her decision. Are there no obstacles to getting the purpose right, to honing in on what is unquestionably the right goal to make personal sacrifices for? What could be the source of such infallible knowledge or the experience that appears as if one is in the possession of it? These are appropriate questions! For, the activist possesses not only a firm conviction that the cause is right, but also a persuasion that no consideration could possibly put it in question. The position is tantamount to a person who has all the answers in advance, with no need to engage in the search for evidence. It is a position that readily presents answers, while the procedure that supplied them remains forever hidden, unexplored, and insignificant. Does this, therefore, mean that it isn’t, strictly speaking, important what will really be achieved (as in the saying “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth”), but that whatever is accomplished is good enough—in the sense of being sufficient and not open to moral assessment other than automatic praise? Put differently, since the activist’s motivation procures the act’s rightness and its goodness, does this mean that there is no possible question to be raised here? Or, that no argumentation of any kind is required or possible in this case? The last remark indicates an ideological character of the situation—we are trading in a context wherein reasons do not function in their customary fashion, or not at all. This appears to make activism akin to ideology.
This discovered link between international activism and disposition to uncritical adoption of ideology indicates that the principal danger international activists face is their vulnerability to co-option by big powers through usurpation of the main (ideological) tenets that define sumum bonum on behalf of which they activate. In light of The Professionalism Constraint international activists are morally required to prevent such co-option and usurpation, but the ideological nature of activism substantially reduces the resistance capacity by activists in this respect. Hence, it should not be surprising that they end up converted into force multipliers with such ease. However, there is a defense available to them that could enhance their integrity and consists in the practice of humility. If activists avoid the attitude of epistemic arrogance with respect to the normative value of the cause they act to support, if they refuse to take their own comfort and conviction regarding the value of their cause as a sure mark of its unquestionable validity, they may have a way of protecting the moral purity of their engagement. This takes us to the final constraint in this exercise, to The Humility Constraint:
(C4) It is considered morally impermissible for international activists to take the strength of their conviction as a sufficient condition for the validity of their endeavor.
In light of the moral constraints, C1-C4, the overwhelmingly negative assessment of contemporary Western international activism is painfully obvious. If so, the question emerges, what must morally speaking be done about it? This question would have to be answered both from the perspective of the activists and those who find themselves on the receiving end of these would-be-good-but-bad-Samaritans.
From the perspective of the Western activists we should advise the following. Just as the old American saying goes that “all politics is local” so all activism should be local. In fact, the overarching duty for any activist-minded Westerner may be to go local, and thus deprive the imperialist project of an important body of force multipliers. On the other hand, if activities and projects by international activists hailing from the West cannot be deemed morally permissible, this should have legal consequences in the rest of the world: all countries outside the Empire, particularly countries targeted by international activists as potential theaters of their operations, ought to criminalize activities by international activists and “human rights organizations” on their territory when not in solidarity or in support of local movements. Paradoxically, the justification for this criminalization is grounded precisely in the real concern for the human rights of the inhabitants from those countries.
A clarification is in order at this point. When I state that all activism should be local this is not meant to preclude legitimate international activism. What I mean is to insist on the primacy of local activism in the sense that all international activism must recognize this primacy, and hence reduce itself to a supporting role. In short, the legitimate international activism engages in solidarity and support of pre-existing local movements. Recognizing this primacy of the local aspect of activism can be seen as the main condition of legitimacy for any international activism.
Gene Sharp was the mastermind of the disastrous regime change techniques which led to drastic fall in living standards and factual failures of states in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Ukraine
The conceptual apparatus and normative framework developed here can assist in diagnosing in a precise way what is wrong (morally speaking) with the Western “strategic non-violent action” and the projection of the so called “soft power”. In short, this design that uses non-violence as a form of warfare adopted by foreign policy makers in the U.S. who orchestrated various “color revolutions,” “Arab spring,” etc. must be deemed morally impermissible as it violates all four constraints developed and defended here and because it feigns respect for the primacy of local activism: while it is the local people that participate in a non-violent movement directed against their government, the movement itself is envisaged, funded, and its “local” leaders are trained by foreign organizations.
Returning now to the Russian law on the undesirable foreign NGOs, rather than quickly dismissing it as an assault on dissent, civil society or anything else we could avoid drama and hysteria by using the conceptual apparatus offered here in order to assess whether the response to international activism is excessive or legitimate, which at the same time gives us a very precise sense of what is rightly “undesirable”. To the extent that foreign NGOs violate the provision of the primacy of the local activism and the four moral constraints, issuing restrictions in the form of legal means may be entirely justified and defensible. In fact, this is a practice that would in all probability be justified the world over, in particular in what I like to call the “once developing world” (before they become victims of imposed neoliberal economic models) where the Western human rights organizations have been operating in total impunity.
Aleksandar Jokic is Professor of Philosophy at Portland State University. This article is based on his essay “Go Local: Morality and International Activism” Ethics & Global Politics Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013; pp. 39-62.
Obama to urge G7 leaders to maintain Russia sanctions – while admitting they don’t work
RT | June 5, 2015
US President Barack Obama will urge G7 leaders to keep sanctions in place against Russia at the G7 summit in Germany, US officials said. The US says it needs to “maintain the pressure” on Moscow.
The G7 nations will meet in Bavaria, Germany for a two-day summit beginning Sunday. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that the sanctions imposed on Russia will be on the agenda.
“In my understanding, the president plans to talk with the European leaders about the necessity to continue the sanctions, which are already in place. This will be part of the discussion,” Earnest told a press briefing. He added, though, that he “would acknowledge that we have not yet seen the kind of change in behavior that we have long fought for.”
Charles Kupchan, the White House Senior Director for European Affairs, confirmed that meetings at the summit will be centered on the US and Europe putting pressure on Moscow.
“The president will be making the case to his European colleagues that the European Union should move ahead and extend sanctions when they end,” Kupchan said.
The US has criticized Russia recently for an increase in fighting in Eastern Ukraine. However, on Thursday, the Kremlin released a statement saying that the tensions, which had been stoked by Kiev, were increased to coincide with the upcoming EU summit, which is to take place in Brussels on June 25-26.
“Yes, indeed, in the past Kiev had already heated up tensions amid some large international events. This is the case, and now we are seriously concerned about the next repetition of such activity,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
However, rather than further looking to sideline Moscow, German Chancellor Angela Merkel says that it is essential to continue cooperation with Russia in a number of key international questions.
“Of course we want and should cooperate with the Russian Federation,” Merkel told the DPA news agency. “In order to settle some conflicts, such as the one in Syria, we cannot go forward without Russia’s help. Therefore I support maintaining contact with President Vladimir Putin.”
The Obama administration says that the longer the sanctions are in place, “the more of an economic bite they take out of the Russian economy.” However, the sanctions are also having a negative effect on a number of EU members who have been hurt by Russian counter-sanctions.
“I think these sanctions are affecting Europe much more as a whole than was expected, and the others on the other side of the Atlantic are not affected at all,” said former Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, who spoke to RT in November.
Some EU nations are becoming wary of introducing further sanctions against Moscow. During a visit to Moscow in March by the Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades, he stated: “[Russia and Cyprus] will cooperate without paying attention to who is reacting or who may have concerns,” according to CNA.
The current EU sanctions expire in June, after which time the bloc will hold a vote on prolonging them. However, a Russian politician, Leonid Kalashnikov, says he is confident that the bloc will not look to impose further measures against Moscow as it will not be in their interests.
“As far as new sanctions are concerned, now I am sure that Europe is very unlikely to impose them, because there are nations that would not agree to this – Greece, Cyprus, Hungary and Italy. And if even a single nation does not agree there would be no decision, such is the voting procedure,” Kalashnikov, the deputy head of the State Duma’s committee for international relations, told the Izvestia daily.
Obama: ‘We have to twist arms when we need to’
Kalashnikov also said that almost daily meetings are held in the State Duma with foreign politicians who are trying to find a way to resume dialogue with Russia.
In February, Spain evaluated the losses suffered by the EU in the “sanctions war” with Russia at €21 billion ($23.78 billion).
In December 2014, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said the US was “twisting arms” of their own allies so that they could continue an “anti-Russian front” and follow US policies on sanctions against Russia.
“But the US is not ashamed of insisting on cooperation with us [Russia] on matters affecting its own interests,” he said. He used the example of the Iranian nuclear talks, in which both Russia and the US take part.
Even President Obama admitted that: “We occasionally have to twist the arms of countries that wouldn’t do what we need them to do,” in an interview with Vox in February.
Even Washington has found the sanctions they have implemented against Russia have not always served their own interests. The US discreetly managed to create a loophole in its sanctions against Russia to allow communications software to be exported to Crimea to try and limit Moscow’s ability “to control the narrative of local events,” according to the Commerce Department, which was cited by Bloomberg.
The move comes after the State Department’s former senior adviser for innovation, Alec Ross, mentioned that the Russians have done “an excellent job of flooding the zone in Crimea with their propaganda,” and that the US needed to introduce media platforms in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, which Moscow would be unable to control.
US Deployment of Missiles in Europe May Lead to Russia’s Exit From INF
Sputnik – 05.06.2015
Russia is fully complying with commitments made under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and does not want to withdraw from it, Viktor Ozerov, the Chairman of the Federation Council on Defense and Security, told RIA Novosti.
However, if the United States decides to put its missiles in Eastern Europe, Russia will seriously consider pulling out of the agreement, Ozerov said.
Earlier, AP reported that the Obama Administration plans to deploy land-based missiles in Eastern Europe that “could pre-emptively destroy the Russian weapons” in response to Moscow’s alleged violation of the INF treaty.
If Washington deploys its missiles in Eastern Europe, its objective wouldn’t be to target sites in the Middle East, but to fire at Russia from a close distance, Ozerov said, adding that in this case Russia will have to respond with force.
“Russia has enough strength and means for an adequate response — starting from the withdrawal from the INF treaty and deploying “Iskanders” (short-range ballistic missile system, also known by its NATO reporting name SS-26 Stone) along our Western borders,” Ozerov told RIA Novosti.
The Chairman of the Defense Committee stressed that Russia is fully complying with the INF treaty, and although Washington says Moscow violated the agreement in the past, it was not able to provide factual evidence of that.
As long as the United States sticks to its commitments under the treaty, Russia is willing to respect the agreement as well, Ozerov said, adding that it’s pointless to blackmail Russia by threatening to deploy missiles in Eastern Europe. Instead, it is a much better idea to try to find a partnership-based agreement with Russia.
The INF treaty was signed between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987. The agreement eliminates all nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate range, between 500 and 5,000 km (300 — 3,400 miles).
In recent years, both the United States and Russia accused each other of violating terms of the treaty. In 2012, Washington accused Moscow of violating the agreement by allegedly launching a cruise missile from an “Iskander” missile system. However, the US government was not able to provide any factual evidence of their claim. Russia, on the other hand, said US drones were also a violation of the treaty.
See also:
US Might Add Missiles to Its Military Buildup in Europe to Counter Russia
Russia Will Respond to NATO’s Missile Defense Buildup in Europe – General
Kiev to allow foreign armed forces in Ukraine, incl. ‘potential carriers of nukes’
RT | June 5, 2015
The Ukrainian parliament has adopted amendments to state law allowing “admission of the armed forces of other states on the territory of Ukraine.” The possible hosting of foreign weapons of mass destruction is also mentioned in the documents.
Amendments to Ukrainian law were adopted on Thursday by the Verkhovna Rada, receiving a majority of 240 votes (the required minimum being 226). The bill was submitted to the parliament in May by PM Arseny Yatsenyuk. It focuses on the provision of “international peacekeeping and security” assistance to Ukraine at its request.
Peacekeeping missions are to be deployed “on the basis of decision of the UN and/or the EU,” the bill published on the parliament’s official website says.
Previously, the presence of any international military forces on the territory of Ukraine not specifically sanctioned by state law was only possible by adopting a special law initiated by the president. Implementation of the new amendments “will create necessary conditions for deployment on the territory of Ukraine international peacekeeping and security” missions without the need for additional legal authorization, the explanatory note to the draft bill said.
The presence of such armed forces in Ukraine “should ensure an early normalization of situation” in Donbass, the note added, saying that they would help “restore law and order and life, constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens” in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.
In a comparative table, published among the accompanying documents to the bill, “potential carriers of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction are permitted under international agreement with Ukraine for short-term accommodation,” with Kiev providing proper control during the period that such forces were stationed there.
Implementation of the law “will not require additional expenditures from the State Budget of Ukraine,” its documents say.
The previous law also required that the length of time temporary peacekeeping forces were to be deployed in Ukraine be stipulated, while the new amendments allow an indefinite period, long enough “to achieve the goal of the stay.”
A separate amendment banned the presence of “armed forces of states that unleash military aggression against Ukraine.” This appears to be a clear reference to the Rada’s January statement calling Russia an “aggressor” – although the body has been reluctant to approve a legally binding law saying exactly that.
Moscow denies being part of the conflict, stressing that Kiev is fighting a civil war with eastern Ukrainians, not Russian forces. The Kremlin has consistently and adamantly denied any presence of Russian troops or hardware in eastern Ukraine, pointing out that there is no evidence proving otherwise.
With violence in south-eastern Ukraine on the rise again, it is “very important to avoid any actions or steps that provoke escalation of tension,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday, as quoted by RIA Novosti. Saying that there is “no shortage” of provocative actions from Kiev’s side, Peskov said the main point is “to concentrate on implementation of [Minsk] agreements.” “This is what Moscow expects the most,” he added.
The new bill on international peacekeeping missions in Ukraine contradicts the Minsk agreements, Russian State Duma MP Leonid Slutsky said. “Minsk-2 did not provide for peacekeepers in resolution of the national conflict,” Slutsky said, as quoted by TASS.
The new legal act is “doomed for inaction,” a member of the Russian Duma’s defense committee, Franz Klintsevich, said, adding that the bill is “pure PR and propaganda.” “I cannot simulate a situation in which the United Nations will vote to deploy international military to Ukraine,” Klintsevich told journalists, as cited by RIA Novosti.
The Lugansk People’s Republic’s envoy to the so-called Contact Group on Ukraine in Minsk, Vladislav Dainego, commented that the law was adopted to “justify the presence” of foreign military that are “already operating in Ukraine.” “There are some 20,000 [troops], primarily from Hungary and Poland,” Dainego claimed when speaking to Interfax, adding that the status of those forces was unclear.
Kiev came up with the initiative to employ peacekeeping missions in Donbass earlier this year. Moscow has insisted that deployment of such forces in Ukraine would be relevant only after all points of the Minsk agreement have been fully implemented, and only if both sides of the conflict – Kiev and the rebel republics – agree to the measure.
Read more:
Deployment of peacekeepers should be agreed with both sides of Ukrainian conflict – Lavrov
‘Stick to Minsk deal’: Russia slams Ukraine idea for EU peacekeepers
Fallacies in Modern Medicine: Statins and the Cholesterol-Heart Hypothesis
By Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD | June 4, 2015
This commentary was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 20, Number 2, Pages 54-56, Summer 2015.
Modern medicine has developed striking ways to treat coronary heart disease, which feature coronary stents implanted percutaneously and coronary artery bypass grafts performed surgically with the aid of a heart-lung machine. And then there are statins to lower cholesterol.
A 70-year-old man sees a physician for a checkup. He has no history of heart disease and no risk factors for it. He does not smoke, has no family history of diabetes or heart disease, and is physically active and not overweight. His blood pressure is 130/70. A lipid panel, however, shows that his calculated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is 195 mg/dL. Following the most recent 2013 guidelines framed by an American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) task force, the physician prescribes a statin for this person, rosuvastatin (Crestor) 20 mg/day, for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). [1]
Cardiologists declare that “cholesterol-containing lipoproteins are central to the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis.” [2] Statins, first approved for clinical use in 1987, are very effective in lowering cholesterol. High intensity statin therapy, rosuvastatin 20mg/day and atorvastatin (Lipitor) 40-80 mg, reduces LDL-C by 50 percent or greater. Moderate intensity therapy, rosuvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin (Zocor) 20-40 mg, and pravastatin (Pravachol) 40 mg/day, achieves a 30 to 50 percent reduction of LDL-C. [3]
Some 43 million Americans take statins. [4] In 2010, 11.6 percent of the population took them, 37 million, which includes 19.2 percent of people age 45-64; 39.6 percent, age 65-74; and 44.3 percent of people age 75 and older. [3] Following the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines, an additional 10.2 million Americans without cardiovascular disease, like the patient above, have now become candidates for statin therapy. [5] One study concludes that 97 percent of black and white Americans aged 66 to 75, including all men in that age group should take statins. [6]
It is a multi-billion dollar business. Pfizer’s Lipitor went on sale in 1997 and became the best-selling drug in the history of prescription pharmaceuticals before its patent expired in 2011. Sales surpassed $125 billion. AstraZeneca’s Crestor was the top-selling statin in 2013, generating $5.2 billion in revenue that year.
Pfizer, in an advertisement, proclaims, “Lipitor reduces risk of heart attack by 36%,” based on the findings of a large randomized trial where 10,305 individuals were assigned to take Lipitor or a placebo (ASCOT-LLA). [7] The trial showed that 1.9 percent of people taking Lipitor suffered a heart attack while 3.0 percent of the placebo group had one. Considered in terms of “relative risk” reduction, the percentage Pfizer cites in the ad is correct. (It is calculated by subtracting 1.9 from 3 and dividing the difference, 1.1, by 3, which equals 36 percent.) But more realistically, the trial showed that Lipitor only reduced the “absolute risk” of having a heart attack by a tiny 1.1 percent (1.9 percent in the statin group compared with 3 percent in the placebo group). [7] Statin-trial investigators tout relative risk reduction (typically 20-40 percent in these trials) rather than the meager, real-world reduction in risk (1-2 percent taking statins).
Investigators cite relative risk to inflate claims of statins’ effectiveness. However, they report deleterious effects in terms of absolute risk, minimizing their magnitude. For example, if 6 percent of the statin group were to get diabetes during a trial compared to 2 percent with the placebo group, they will say that taking statins increases the risk of acquiring diabetes by 4 percent, not that there is 66 percent increased (relative) risk of suffering this adverse event.
Government and the pharmaceutical industry fund these multimillion dollar studies expecting correct results, so statin-trial researchers employ this particular kind of statistical deception to create the appearance that statins are effective and safe. [8] As one medical school professor puts it, “Anyone who questions cholesterol usually finds his funding cut off.” [9]
Eukaryotic animal cells make cholesterol through the “mevalonate pathway.” This pathway also produces, among other things, coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), heme-A, and dolichol. CoQ10 is particularly important as it functions both as an antioxidant and, with heme-A, in aerobic cellular respiration—in the electron transport chain that generates adenosine triphosphate, the fuel that powers all living things. (Dolichol is required for synthesis of glycoproteins.) Statins inactivate hydroxymethylglutaryl‐coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase, the enzyme cells use to synthesize mevalonate from HMG-CoA. This shuts down the mevalonate pathway. As a result, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) block not only the synthesis of cholesterol but also CoQ10 and the other physiologically essential biomolecules that this pathway produces.
Lovastatin (Mevacor), the first statin, is a naturally occurring molecule isolated from a fungus named Aspergillus terreus. Newer statins are synthetic variations of these mycotoxins that fungi produce. Fungi make statins, as a “secondary metabolite,” to kill predatory microbes. They also kill human cells. In a review of How Statin Drugs Really Lower Cholesterol and Kill You One Cell at a Time by James and Hannah Yoseph, Peter Langsjoen writes:
Many practicing physicians have a healthy understanding of the current level of corruption and collusion among big pharmaceutical companies, governmental agencies such as the NIH and FDA, and major medical associations such as the American Heart Association, but the reader of this book will come away with the disturbing conclusion that it is even worse than imagined. Statins may be the perfect and most insidious human toxin in that adverse effects are often delayed by years and come about gradually. Further, statins frequently impair mental function to such a degree that by the time patients are in real trouble, they may lack the mental facilities to recognize the cause. [10]
This toxin targets brain cells and skeletal muscle. The brain makes up 2 percent of body weight but contains 25 percent of the body’s cholesterol. Its dry weight is 50 percent cholesterol. LDL-C delivers cholesterol to the body’s cells, except for the brain since this cholesterol-carrying lipoprotein does not cross the blood-brain barrier. Statins do. Brain cells, neurons and glial cells, manufacture their own cholesterol and the mevalonate pathway’s other products. [11] A broad spectrum of adverse cognitive reactions occur from taking statins. They include confusion, forgetfulness, disorientation, memory impairment, transient global amnesia, and dementia. [12]
Myopathy is the most common adverse effect of statin treatment, manifested by muscle aches and pains, weakness, instability, and easy fatigue. [8,13] The most severe manifestation of statin-induced muscle damage is rhabdomyolysis, which carries a 10 percent mortality rate. Fragments of ruptured muscle block renal tubules and cause kidney failure. [12] In one randomized trial of 1,016 healthy men and women given statins or a placebo, 40 percent of the women taking statins suffered exertional fatigue or decreased energy. [14]
Several randomized controlled trials have reported a statistically significant increase in cancer taking statins. [8,15] In most of these trials, a small reduction in cardiovascular deaths in the statin group is counterbalanced by an increase in deaths from other causes, notably cancer, with the result that there is in no significant difference in all-cause mortality between people taking a placebo and those prescribed statins. [16]
Statins can also cause diabetes, emotional disorders (depression, aggressiveness, suicidal ideation), hepatitis, cataracts, and strokes. [12,13,17] In January 2014 the FDA issued new safety information on statins, pointing out that “a small increased risk of raised blood sugar levels and the development of type 2 diabetes have been reported with the use of statins;” and it required drug companies add this information in the package insert with the drug. [18] Since then (as of August 2014), attorneys have filed more than 1,000 lawsuits against Pfizer, representing 4,000 women who say that taking Lipitor gave them diabetes.
Statin trials typically run for only 2 to 5 years. Investigators terminated the influential JUPITER trial endorsing statins for primary prevention of ASCVD after (a median) 1.9 years, far too short a time to reveal one of the worst “side effects” of long-term statin treatment: accelerated senescence. [19] Statins speed up the transition from midlife vigor to debilitated old age. [12]
Heart surgeon Michael DeBakey and his team, 52 years ago, found no correlation between blood cholesterol levels and severity of atherosclerosis in 1,700 patients undergoing surgical treatment of ASCVD. [20] I have observed the same thing with my heart surgery patients (unpublished observations). Evidence for the cholesterol-heart hypothesis, i.e., the lipid hypothesis, wilts upon close scrutiny, as is also the case with the diet-heart hypothesis, which indicts saturated fat along with cholesterol for causing atherosclerosis. Approached with an open mind and without confirmatory bias (ignoring evidence that disagrees with one’s beliefs), substantial evidence now proves beyond a reasonable doubt that these hypotheses are wrong. [21-25]
If not cholesterol, what causes atherosclerosis? My colleague, the late Russell Ross, professor of pathology at the University of Washington discovered the cause: Atherosclerosis is an inflammatory disease. [26] Initiated by endothelial dysfunction, with or without injury, and mediated by macrophages and T lymphocytes, the ensuing inflammatory response promotes proliferation and migration of smooth muscle cells. Russell demonstrated that atherosclerosis is a chronic inflammatory and fibroproliferative process that is fundamentally no different than that seen in cirrhosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic pancreatitis.
The small benefit statins offer in dealing with ASCVD comes from their non-lipid-lowering anti-inflammatory effects, especially with their ability to suppress nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kB), a transcription factor concerned with intensifying the inflammatory response. [27] But even if they had no harmful side effects, the “number needed to treat” (NNT) for statins weighs against their use. If a statin reduces the (absolute) risk of having a heart attack by just 2 percent, its NNT is 50. For every 50 people taking a statin, 1 person will benefit while 49 other people (98 percent) will not gain any benefit from taking the drug and will expose themselves to the potentially serious broad spectrum of adverse events that statins cause (carrying a risk considerably greater than 2 percent). Statins do more harm than good. (Nutraceuticals curcumin and resveratrol also quell inflammation, like statins, by suppressing NF-kB—with no side effects).
A catalog of factors that play a causal role in inflammatory ASCVD would include: 1) eating trans fats and too many carbohydrates and omega-6 vegetable oils (and not enough saturated fats); 2) deficiencies in various vitamins (vitamins A, C, D, E, K2, B6, B9-folic acid, and B12); 3) mineral deficiencies (magnesium, selenium, copper) and excess (iron); 4) lipid oxidation products; 5) possibly bacterial infection (Chlamydia pneumoniae); 6) diabetes; 7) abdominal obesity; 8) hypertension; 9) smoking; and 10) stress.
Cholesterol combats inflammation in addition to its other roles, which include maintaining cell membrane integrity (cell membranes are 50 percent cholesterol), facilitating cell signaling, and serving as the structural foundation for bile salts, various hormones, and vitamin D. Dealing with inflammation cholesterol acts as the body’s fire brigade, putting out inflammatory fires and helping repair damage. (Blaming cholesterol for atherosclerosis is like blaming firemen for the fire they have come to put out.)
Cementing this molecule’s physiologic importance, there are now more than 100 peer reviewed studies showing that low cholesterol levels lead to early death. [28] One of them is a study by Schatz and colleagues exploring the relationship between cholesterol levels and death rates over a 20-year period in 3,572 men aged 71-93 years. Those with the lowest cholesterol had a 35 percent increase in mortality compared with the highest cholesterol. [29] Another one, following 490 people aged 75 years for over 6 years, found that those with cholesterol levels below 193 mg/dL had a 52 percent increase in death rates compared to those with cholesterol levels above 232 mg/dL. Death rates rose by 18 percent for every 38mg/dL decrease in cholesterol levels. [30]
It is becoming increasingly clear that the cholesterol-heart hypothesis is a fallacy of modern medicine. In the future medical historians may liken the prescribing of statins to lower blood cholesterol with the old medical practice of bloodletting. Taking that vital substance out of the body is comparable to today’s practice of blocking production of cholesterol, an equally vital component, with drugs.
References
- Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:2889-2934.
- Kohli P, Whelton SP, Hsu S, et al. Clinician’s guide to the updated ABCs of cardiovascular disease prevention. J Am Heart Assoc 2014;3:e001098 Available at: http://jaha.ahajournals.org/content/3/5/e001098.full Accessed March 17, 2015.
- Newsom, LD. Primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease:Controversies and clinical considerations. Ann Pharmacother 2015;49(April): 484-493.
- Pencina MJ, Navar-Boggan AM, D’Agostino RB, et al. Application of new cholesterol guidelines to a population-based sample. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1422-1431.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health United States, 2013: With special feature on prescription drugs. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus13.pdf Accessed March 20, 2015.
- Miedema AMD, Lopez FL, Blaha MJ. Eligibility for statin therapy according to new cholesterol guidelines and prevalent use of medication to lower lipid levels in an older US cohort: The atherosclerosis risk in communities study cohort. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175(1):138-140.
- Sever PS, Dahlof B, Poulter NR, et al. Prevention of coronary and stroke events with atorvastatin in hypertensive patients who have average or lower-than-average cholesterol concentrations, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Lipid Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2003;361:1149-1158.
- Diamond DM, Ravnskov U. How statistical deception created the appearance that statins are safe and effective in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2015;8(2):189-199.
- Rosch P. Quote in: Cholesterol skeptics and the bad news about statins. Center for Medical Consumers, Cholesterol Skeptics: Conference Report. Available at: http://medicalconsumers.org/2003/06/01/cholesterol-skeptics-conference-report/ Accessed March 21, 2015.
- Langsjoen P. Review of How Statin Drugs Really Lower Cholesterol and Kill You One Cell at a Time by James and Hannah Yoseph. J Am Phys Surg 2013;18:30.7
- Mauch DH, Nagler K, Schumacher S. CNS synaptogenesis promoted by glia-derived cholesterol. Science 2001:294(5545):1354-1457.
- Graveline D. Adverse Effects of statin drugs: a physician patient’s perspective. J Am Phys Surg 2015;20:7-11.
- Golomb BA, Evans MA. Statin adverse effects: a review of the literature and evidence for a mitochondrial mechanism. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2008;8(63):373-418.
- Golomb BA, Evans MA, Dimsdale JE, et al. Effects of statins on energy and fatigue with exertion: results from a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:1180-1182.
- Ravnskov U, Rosch PJ, McCully KS. The statin-low cholesterol-cancer conundrum. QJM 2012;105:383-388.
- Colpo A. The Great Cholesterol Con: Why everything you’ve been told about cholesterol, diet and heart disease is wrong! Lulu.com; 2006.
- Culver AL, Ockene IS, Balasubramanian R, et al. Statin use and risk of diabetes mellitus in postmenopausal women in women’s health initiative. Arch Intern Med 2012;172(2):144-152.
- FDA expands advice on statin risk. FDA Consumer Health Information/U.S. Food and Drug Administration. January 2014. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/UCM293705.pdf Accessed March 22, 2015.
- Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2195-2207.
- Garret HE, Horning EC, Creech RG, DeBakey M. Serum cholesterol values in patients treated surgically for atherosclerosis. JAMA 1964;189:655-659.
- Iso H, Jacobs Jr DR, Wentworth D, et al. Serum cholesterol level and six-year mortality from stroke in 350,977 men screened for the multiple risk factor intervention trial. N Engl J Med 1989;320:904-910.
- Ravnskov U. The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease. Washington, D.C.: New Trends Publishing; 2000.
- Ravnskov U. A hypothesis out-of-date: The diet-heart idea. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:1057-1063,
- Taubes G. Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Sciance of Diet and Health. New York: Anchor Books; 2008.
- Evans D. Cholesterol and Saturated Fats Prevent Heart Disease: Evidence from 101 Scientific Studies. Guilford, Surrey, UK; Grosvenor House Publishing: 2012.
- Ross R. Atherosclerosis—an inflammatory disease N Engl J Med 1999; 340:115-126.
- Hölschermann H, Schuster D, Parviz B, et al. Statins prevent NF-kB transactivation independently of the IKK-pathway in human endothelial cells. Atherosclerosis 2006;185:240-245.
- Evans D. Low Cholesterol Leads to an Early Death: Evidence from 101 Scientific Papers. Guilford, Surrey, UK; Grosvenor House Publishing: 2012.
- Schatz IJ, Masaki K, Yano K, et al. Cholesterol and all-cause mortality in elderly people from the Honolulu Heart Program: a cohort study. Lancet 2001;358(9279):351-355.
- Tuikkala P, Hartikainen S, Korhonen MF, et al. Serum total cholesterol levels and all-cause mortality in a home-dwelling elderly population: a six-year follow-up. Scand J Prim Health Care 2010;28(2):121-127.
Donald Miller (send him mail) is a retired cardiac surgeon and Emeritus Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle. He is a member of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
PBS Frontline Fails the Public with “Obama at War”
A Case Study in Distortion and Bias on Syria
By Rick Sterling | Dissident Voice | June 4, 2015
Introduction
Frontline is an influential television program which examines important foreign and domestic issues. The shows tend to be technically well done – combining concise writing with compelling video. Many North Americans watch and have their beliefs shaped by Frontline documentaries.
Last week Public Broadcasting System channels across North America broadcast the Frontline special titled “Obama at War”. The 52 minute video portrays the following:
* Origins of the Syrian conflict
* Response of the Obama administration
* Evolution of the conflict
* The run-up and response to alleged chemical attacks in 2013
* Emergence of ISIS, Nusra and other extremist groups
* Where is the conflict headed? Where is US policy headed?
The video is online here. The approximate time stamp of some key moments in the video are noted in text below.
Positive Elements
On the positive side, the documentary acknowledges that:
* It is a violation of international law to provide weapons to a non-state actor trying to overthrow a sovereign state.
* The overthrow of the Libyan government led to chaos and increased sectarianism and violence.
* There might not be any easy solutions; escalating US involvement as demanded by the “Syrian opposition” and interventionists might actually make things worse.
In addition, the program shows the inner workings and debate process in the Obama administration.
That said, following are some key problems with the documentary.
Key Failings:
(1) Promotes “Syrian Opposition” that is more American than Syrian
Three “Syrian Opposition” members (Ouabi Shahbandar, Murhaf Jouejati, and Amr al Azm) appear 12 times through the documentary, using about 7% of the total time. In reality all of the three are U.S. Citizens; none of them has lived in Syria for many years or decades.
Ouabi Shahbandar is the “Syrian Opposition” member given prominent attention in the video. He came to the US at age 8. At Arizona State University in 2003 he was a young Republican neoconservative on the rampage, strongly supporting GW Bush and the invasion of Iraq, denouncing war protesters as “terrorists” and allying with far right figures such as David Horowitz. In the past decade he has worked for the US Dept of Defense.
Murhaf Jouejati teaches at the National Defense University (US Dept of Defense). A third voice is from Amr Al Azm who is leader of the US funded “Day After Project” intended to plan for development after regime change in Damascus. In short, all three “Syrian Opposition” voices are aligned and committed to US not Syrian national interests.
(2) Excludes authentic Syrian voices
Most viewers will be completely unaware that polls have consistently shown the majority of Syrians supporting their government and opposing armed opposition attacks. As the widely respected British journalist Jonathan Steele wrote in 2012, “Most Syrians back President Assad but you’d never know from Western media.” In 2013, a NATO study concluded that Assad was winning the battle for Syrian hearts and minds and “After two years of civil war, support for the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad was said to have sharply increased.”
In light of this it seems fair to ask: Why are none of these voices included in a documentary about Syria? Why were there no voices from members of the Syrian American Forum or Arab Americans for Syria or from Syrians who actually live in Syria and experience the conflict first hand?
(3) Gives biased and contradictory characterization of the conflict
At (2:30) “Syrian opposition” member Murhaf Jouejati claims the Syrian opposition has universal goals and is not sectarian. In contrast, at (3:35) Washington Post journalist David Ignatius describes the uprising as a “Sunni revolution”. How can it be a “Sunni revolution” and non-sectarian at the same time?
In reality, both portrayals are distortions. The Syrian conflict has been often characterized in Western media as “an Alawi regime dictatorship dominating the Sunni majority population.” Although repeated countless times, it is essentially untrue. For example, the powerful Syrian Defense and Information Ministries are both led by Sunni Muslims; the Syrian Army is majority Sunni; the economy is dominated by Sunni businessmen. In reality, Syria is a mix of many religions and the government is predominately nationalist and secular, not religious.
The opposition is driven by sectarian Wahabi ideology but that does not represent Sunni Islam any more than Zionist supremacism represents Judaism or right wing Christian fundamentalists represent Christianity.
(4) Excludes important background information about U.S. Ambassador and US Policy
U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford is ever-present in the documentary. He appears 15 separate times and his perspective uses almost 10% of the entire video. In the opening scenes, Ford talks about going to support a protest march in Hama. He says “We were not backing any particular set of demands that the protesters were putting forward; we were simply supporting their right to demonstrate peacefully.” This is a nice platitude for those who believe in the tooth fairy, but how about the real world?
In fact, U.S. policy has been hostile toward Syria for many years. In 2003-4 the Syria Accountability Act imposed sanctions. It’s widely known that the US and allies Israel and Saudi Arabia seek to break Syria’s alliance with Iran and the Lebanese resistance movement. Israel has attacked Syria numerous times. In 2007, Seymour Hersh wrote:
The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
Robert Ford is very familiar with these “extremist groups” since he was Political Counselor under Ambassador John Negroponte in Baghdad 2004 – 2006 during the time that they were launched. Negroponte is infamous in Latin America where he was US Ambassador to Honduras coordinating the creation of the ‘Contras’ in Nicaragua and death squads in El Salvador and Honduras. Negroponte and Robert Ford implemented the transformation in US strategy in Iraq following the first year of US occupation. Called the “Salvador option” by Newsweek magazine, Robert Ford likely played a pivotal role since he was a top official and fluent in Arabic. But this important background information is missing from the Frontline special.
(5) Falsely claims the Syrian insurgency was predominately secular in 2012/2013
One of the major arguments of Robert Ford and other interventionists is that the Syrian uprising was not sectarian; they claim the Obama Administration did not do enough to support the secular opposition and thereby “allowed” it to be radicalized. Ford says toward the end of the documentary:
Of course there was a window of opportunity. The jihadi elements in Syria were a distinct minority in the Syrian armed opposition in late 2012 and going into 2013.(45:35)
This assertion is contradicted on multiple counts. Observing conditions in Aleppo in September-October 2012, American journalist James Foley wrote:
Many civilians here are losing patience with the increasingly violent and unrecognizable opposition — one that is hampered by infighting and a lack of structure, and deeply infiltrated by both foreign fighters and terrorist groups.
More significantly, just in the past few weeks, the August 2012 analysis of the Defense Information Agency has been released following a law suit connected to Congressional hearings around Benghazi. That report states:
Internally, events are taking a clear sectarian direction. The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major force driving the insurgency in Syria.
It appears Ford was deliberately downplaying the sectarian reality of the conflict to justify his call for greater US intervention.
(6) Falsely suggests Obama Administration was preventing opposition forces from receiving weapons
The documentary gives the impression the Obama administration was steadfastly blocking the supplying of weapons to Syrian armed opposition through 2012. In reality, huge quantities of weapons were transferred beginning 2011. Another Defense Intelligence Agency document discloses:
During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the Gaddafi regime, in October 2011 and up until early September 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped …to Syria.
The weapons included “Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 150mm howitzer missiles.”
As documented here, beginning November 2012 there was a major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels:
3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan.
The kernel of truth here is that despite the huge shipments of weapons to the armed opposition they were still losing. Unwilling to accept this, Saudi Arabia wanted to escalate the shipments and transfers even more.
(7) Excludes Crucial Information including the Huge Number of Syrian Soldiers Killed
There are many scenes of Syrian victims from “armed opposition” territories and battle zones. Like all wars and conflicts, it is horrible with good and bad people on all sides. However, it is striking that there are no videos or interviews showing the extent of casualties in Syrian government areas.
Three quarters of the Syrian population live in areas under Syrian government control and they are also victims of random or targeted attacks. Nor is there any hint about the huge number of Syrian soldiers, police and national defense forces who have been killed.
Viewers of “Obama at War” will have no idea that between 80 and 120 thousand Syrian soldiers and civil defenders have been killed in the conflict. Many thousands are victims of those “Sniper” rifles shipped under the watchful eye of the CIA. Skeptical readers are urged to look for themselves at the range of estimates from different sources shown here.
Contrary to the mythology, there was a violent faction provoking the conflict from the beginning.
What would happen in the USA or Canada if foreign sponsored “rebels” killed tens of thousands of police or military soldiers?
(8) Falsely claims “clear proof” that Syrian government used Sarin in Spring 2013
At (22:15) Frontline intones “With no one to stop him, Assad initiates a new phase in the war: the deployment of chemical weapons.”
Mark Mazetti of NY Times says:
Intelligence community was assessing that the rebels were on the ropes. You have the clear proof in the intelligence community that there had been chemical weapon attacks ….
Mazetti’s assertion ignores the widespread debate and differing opinions among those looking into the sarin issue. For example, UN Inspector Carla Ponte said the evidence pointed toward the rebels being responsible, not the government. She said:
There are strong, concrete suspicions …of the use of sarin gas….on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.
If the “rebels” were “on the ropes”, why would the Assad government use chemical weapons and provoke international outcry and possible intervention? On the other hand, the “rebels” had the motive and the means. Syrian insurgents had even been captured with Sarin in Turkey earlier in the year.
(9) Excludes key research on responsibility for Sarin Use in August 2013
At (26:45) Frontline says “Then, a sarin gas attack on a rebel held suburb of Damascus…..1400 men, women and children are killed according to what the American intelligence agencies tell the President.” John Kerry accuses the Syrian government of using “the world’s most heinous weapons against the most vulnerable people”.
In reality, there was immediate skepticism about the responsibility. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), made of up retired members of the US intelligence community especially the Central Intelligence Agency, issued a statement saying:
Former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this.
“Obama at War” ignores the critical debate and simply repeats the accusations which have been largely discredited. Over the past 18 months some of the best US investigative journalists have researched what happened on August 21 in Ghouta. Seymour Hersh wrote “The Red Line and the Rat Line” pointing to Turkish and Nusra culpability. Robert Parry wrote “The Collapsing Syria-Sarin Case” identifying the “junk heap of bad evidence” used to blame the Syrian government. Two months before the gas attacks, Russ Baker predicted the drive toward another US intervention based on false premises. He commented sarcastically: “No one is likely to demand good hard evidence for the use of chemical weapons. After all, the Bush administration and its lies for war was so…very long ago.”
Instead of dealing with the controversy and contrary evidence, Frontline ignored it and echoes the assertions of interventionists.
(10) Largely ignores the lessons from Libya
The situation in Libya is highly relevant to Syria – and recent. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to explore what happened there and the lessons to be learned? At (9:45) there is a passing reference to the chaos in Libya following the overthrow of the Gadaffi government.
Earlier at (5:45) NY Times reporter Mark Mazetti says “We had seen what happened in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya … Popular demonstrations would ultimately bring down the regime.” However, that is inaccurate regarding Libya where the government was overthrown by a seven month US/NATO/GULF bombing campaign – not “popular demonstrations”.
Considering that the attacks on Libya were presented as necessary to “protect civilians” (as is currently argued for Syria), and the eruption of sectarianism and violence which has followed, and the terrible decline in living standards and security for Libyan civilians …. isn’t this worthy of more than five seconds passing reference?
(11) Repeats Dubious Accusations regarding Chlorine Gas Bombs
“Obama at War” repeats accusations based on unreliable evidence that the Syrian government has been using chlorine gas bombs to attack civilians. Logic would suggest that the opposition has a motive for this while the government does not. Some widely publicized writers, such as Dr. Annie Sparrow, are full of moralistic condemnations but curiously short of facts. As reported by Time magazine in Spring 2013, the major chlorine producing factory in Syria (and its stockpiles of chlorine) were under Nusra (Al Queda) control since 2012. It is also curious there are no current videos showing the alleged onslaught of chlorine filled barrel bombs while there are many videos showing the armed opposition launching gas canisters.
(12) Promotes False History of the Expansion of ISIS and Nusra
At this point the documentary does something very misleading: it presents the expansion of ISIS and Nusra as a consequence of the Obama decision not to attack Syria. At 36:25 the documentary intones “Extremists exploited the decision not to attack.” At 36:35 Shahbandar claims that extremists are telling Syrian civilians “Look you’ve been betrayed by the world ….”. At 36:55 Baker (NY Times) suggests that ISIS and Nusra are saying “We’re the only ones who can take down Assad and create a new order here.” The documentary then claims that moderate rebels are joining extremists with ISIS emerging as the strongest. That is soon followed by video showing ISIS surging through Iraq and seizing Mosul.
In reality, the extremists (Nusra, ISIS, etc) were the major armed opposition force long before the August 2013 situation. That was confirmed in the August 2012 DIA report. Nor was the surge of ISIS into Iraq a consequence of the Obama decision. The ISIS seizure of Mosul occurred in June of 2014, ten months after the Obama decision.
If the US had proceeded and attacked Syria in September 2013 it would have further weakened the Syrian government and helped the extremists expand even more. After four years of attacks by tens of thousands of heavily armed insurgents from all over the globe, the Syrian government and military is greatly weakened. That has allowed ISIS to control the lightly populated eastern part of the country. The Syrian army is bogged down fighting thousands of extremists in the major urban areas in the west, north and south which has allowed ISIS to continue in the east.
(13) Suggests that ISIS and Nusra are “helping” and “defending” Syrians
At 37:10 Ford says:
I think it’s human nature to seek help from those who will defend you against the external threat that’s killing you, arresting you, torturing you … It’s no surprise that Syrians seek support of anyone to get rid of the regime that’s inflicting the pain.
Ford’s assertion that the extremists are “defending” Syrians against an “external threat” is bizarre since the “external threat” refers to the Syrian government and “those who will defend you” refers to extremist organizations consisting of huge numbers of sectarian fanatics and mercenaries from across the globe.
While there are some Syrians who want a sectarian wahabi state with strict sharia law, they are vastly outnumbered by Syrians who want to maintain a secular state and inclusive multi-faith society. The suggestion in this documentary that a significant number of Syrians seek “help” from ISIS or Nusra is a grotesque falsehood.
Ford continues his nonchalant description of ISIS at 44:30:
Dropping bombs is not going to destroy the Islamic State and so it seems the Islamic State is going to maintain control over the eastern half of Syria more or less indefinitely.
Conclusions
* “Obama at War” presents a biased and distorted view of the reality in Syria.
* The experience and perspective of the vast majority of Syrians is ignored.
* There is a pressing need for realistic reports which convey the perspectives and experiences of all people in the conflict, not just the “opposition” and their supporters.
Rick Sterling is active with the Syria Solidarity Movement and Mt Diablo Peace and Justice Center. He can be emailed at: rsterling1@gmail.com.
Police search house, prepare charges against German Holocaust skeptic
By Brandon Martinez | Non-Aligned Media | June 4, 2015
German media have reported that police have raided the house of 86-year-old Ursula Haverbeck, a German lady who has publicly doubted the Holocaust story.
A report in Mindener Tageblatt says:
“The public prosecution department of the city of Bielefeld has been investigating a case of “incitement to hatred“ (Volksverhetzung) against … Ursula Haverbeck. Now, a new lawsuit was added: prosecutors of Niedersachsen’s State Office of Criminal Investigations have searched the houses of Vlotho resident Haverbeck with the support of authorities of the city of Herford. The houses of three further accused were also searched on that day.”
Haverbeck has been constantly pursued by German authorities for her nonconformist opinions about the Holocaust. In Germany, a self-professed ‘democracy,’ individuals do not have the right to question establishment myths about the Second World War. The public is forced to accept the self-serving interpretations of the winners of World War II under penalty of fines and imprisonment.
The government of Germany should be boycotted and condemned until the present Stasi-like police state is disbanded.
Featured Video
Iran Is Not Our Enemy
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Excerpt
“Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism!” The Science is Settled. Right?
ICAN urges the IACC to actually study infant vaccines and autism
By Aaron Siri | Injecting Freedom | March 16, 2026
On behalf of ICAN, we just sent a copy of chapter 11 of Vaccines, Amen to the newly appointed members of the federal Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC).
If you haven’t already read this chapter, you can read the whole thing in the attached letter. I trust that after you read it, you’ll see why the statement “vaccines do not cause autism” is a belief, not science!
IACC Public Comment Letter
1.53MB ∙ PDF file
Includes chapter 11 of Vaccines, Amen
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Russia condemns Israel’s attack near Bushehr plant, files complaint
- Russia Strongly Condemns Actions Aimed at Harming Health of Iranian Leadership – Kremlin
- Israeli Journalist Demands Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens Be Placed in WWII-Style Internment Camps
- No Liability, No Studies, No Accountability: The Vaccine System Aaron Siri Exposed in Federal Court
- No time for losers: Why the war meant to save Israel may destroy it
- Top US Counterterrorism Official Resigns in Protest of Operation Against Iran
- Just Get Out! Now!
- Unpacking glaring contradictions in US-Zionist justifications for war against Iran
- Iranian model of warfare bleeds US dry while Persian Gulf states watch and learn: Analyst
- IRGC orders ‘defeated’ US to evacuate industrial facilities in region
- If Americans Knew
- Trump’s counterterrorism chief, whose own wife was killed by ISIS, quits over Iran War saying Tehran posed ‘no imminent threat’
- Here’s what US could fund instead of Bibi’s war on Iran
- Israel Killed Over a Dozen Lebanese Paramedics in Three Days, Now Claiming That Ambulances Are “Hezbollah” Targets
- War on Iran: These are the heritage sites devastated by US and Israeli attacks
- Four news stories from Israeli media that illustrate Israeli “justice”
- CIA Prepares Criminal Referral of Tucker Carlson, as Israel and Its Loyalists Demand His Arrest
- Top US counterterror advisor resigns in protest of “war manufactured by Israel” – Not a ceasefire Day 157
- ‘I Liked the House’: When Israeli Soldiers Turn Palestinian Homes into Barracks
- ‘They Were All I Had’: Lebanese Father Buries Parents, 4 Daughters Killed by Israeli Bombing
- Israel and its supporters are causing attacks on Jewish institutions. Case in point: Michigan synagogue tragedy.
- No Tricks Zone
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
- New Study Documents A 20-Year Pause In Arctic Sea Ice Decline – Driven By Internal Variability
- Wake-up Call: Survey Shows Majority Of Germans Now Favor Postponing Climate Targets!
- Televised! Leading German Political Candidate Tells Schoolchildren CO2 Makes Sun Hotter!
- New Study: A Century Warming Of 1.1°C Is ‘Commonplace’ And ‘Not Unusual’ During This Interglacial
- New Study: ‘Internal Noise’ And Volcanic Forcing Can Trigger 10-15°C Warming Within Decades
- Glaciers Worldwide Are Suddendly Surging, Experts Blame Warming!
Aletho News 