Hezbollah Accuses Int’l Organizations of Intimidating Syrian Refugees in Lebanon
Sputnik – 29.06.2018
BEIRUT – International organizations and some Lebanese actors have been intimidating Syrian refugees and asylum seekers displaced by war and who want to return to their country from Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement, said on Friday.
“According to our data, there are some international organizations, and certain local parties, which intimidate the refugees and provoke concerns about the return,” Nasrallah told the Al-Manar broadcaster.
The Hezbollah leader called for action to ensure a safe and comfortable return to Syria of those willing to go back to their homeland.
The Lebanese movement would take its own measures to help the refugees until the Lebanese and Syrian authorities establish cooperation in this area, Nasrallah added. Hezbollah has set up a special mechanism for these activities, and plans to open special centers where the refugees can call, and civil committees for interaction with the refugees, according to the group’s leader.
Since the beginning of the Syrian military conflict in 2011, millions of Syrians have fled the country to other states, including neighboring Lebanon. The situation around Syrian asylum seekers and refugees in Lebanon has recently exacerbated in a wake of the authorities’ claims that the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR had been discouraging those displaced by the Syrian war from returning to their home country.
Lavrov on trading Snowden for sanctions relief: Russia sees US exile as ‘master of his own destiny’
RT | June 29, 2018
Russia has never mulled handing over NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden to the US in exchange for easing sanctions, Russian FM Sergey Lavrov has told the BBC, when asked if this could form part of a deal with President Donald Trump.
“I have never discussed Edward Snowden with [Donald Trump’s] administration,” Lavrov told Channel 4’s Cathy Newman. He added that President Vladimir Putin had addressed the issue years ago, however.
“When he was asked the question, he said this is for Edward Snowden to decide. We respect his rights, as an individual. That is why we were not in a position to expel him against his will, because he found himself in Russia even without a US passport, which was discontinued as he was flying from Hong Kong,” Lavrov recalled.
Snowden, the man behind the biggest exposure in years of the US electronic surveillance apparatus, got stranded in Russia when Washington withdrew his passport as he was travelling via Moscow from Hong Kong. The Russian government eventually granted him political asylum. Snowden is facing prosecution in the US for leaking classified documents to a number of media outlets.
The Channel 4 correspondent suggested during the interview that Russia may try to bargain Snowden for the lifting of US sanctions, during the upcoming meeting between Putin and Trump.
“I do not know why people would start asking this particular question in relation to the summit. Edward Snowden is the master of his own destiny,” Lavrov reiterated.
Labour Friends of Israel: Palestine refugees’ right to return is ‘extreme and illegitimate’
MEMO | June 29, 2018
Westminster-based lobby group Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) has described the Palestinian refugees’ right of return as “extreme and illegitimate”, in a letter to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn this week.
LFI’s letter came in response to remarks made by the Leader of the opposition on 25 June, during a recent visit to Jordan. In a Twitter post, Corbyn wrote:
“In Jordan, I went to Baqa’a, one of the largest Palestinian refugee camps. We must work for a real two state settlement to the Israel-Palestine conflict, which ends the occupation and siege of Gaza and makes the Palestinian right to return a reality.”
In the period 1947-1949, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from or fled their homes as Zionist militias and the Israeli army destroyed hundreds of villages in what became Israel. Refugees attempting to return were killed, and Israel passed laws to expropriate their properties.
Corbyn’s expression of support for the Palestinian refugees’ internationally-recognised rights, prompted anger and concern from British pro-Israel groups, including LFI.
In a letter from LFI chair MP Joan Ryan, the pro-Israel group describes the Palestinians’ right to return (which is referred to in scare quotes) as “highly contentious”, and at odds with Israel’s insistence on retaining its Jewish majority of citizens.
Ryan added: “I do not believe that it does anything to encourage the compromises and concessions a future negotiated settlement will involve for foreign politicians to appear to endorse the most extreme and illegitimate demands of either side.”
The LFI chair concluded by urging Corbyn to “immediately clarify” what he understands by a right to return, and to only use “language… [that] helps to advance, not hinder, the cause of peace, reconciliation and coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians.”
A spokesperson for the Labour party said: “These rights are inalienable and guaranteed by UN Resolution 194 of 11 December 1948. How the right of return is implemented is a matter for the negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.”
Israeli occupation forces deliver ‘humanitarian aid’ to Syria
Al-Manar | June 29, 2018
Israeli occupation forces delivered about 60 tons of ‘humanitarian aid’ to the Syrian Golan Heights on Thursday night, in a new and this time clear attempt to support terrorists based in the country’s south who have been engaged in fierce battle with the Syrian government troops.
Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth reported a ‘special operation’ took place overnight Thursday in which “some 300 tents, 13 tons of food, 15 tons of baby food, three pallets of medical equipment and medicine and some 30 tons of clothes and shoes were transferred into Syria from four different spots on the border.”
As the occupation military delivered the aid, it made it clear it will not allow fleeing Syrians to enter occupied territories, the Israeli daily quoted a statement issued by occupation army.
IOF “was monitoring the events in southwest Syria and was prepared for a variety of different scenarios, including sending further humanitarian aid,” Ynet quoted occupation army spokesman as saying.
The Zionist occupation regime has repeatedly offered different forms of support to militants fighting the Syrian government. The Syrian army has repeatedly seized Israel-made weapons in areas controlled by terrorists.
Times Headline: Fears Over Prospect of Peace
OffGuardian | June 29, 2018
OffGuardian was founded on the idea that the media should be held to account, corrected, fact-checked and interpreted. A lot of the time that’s a job that needs to be done.
But sometimes it’s not. Sometimes you just let them talk and their own words condemn them.
This is one of those times.
The Times is scare-mongering about peace.
Nothing more need be said.
European Union extends economic sanctions against Russia
RT | June 29, 2018
EU leaders have extended economic penalties against Russia for six months until the end of January. The decision prolongs the ban on doing business with Russian banking and financial institutions and new energy projects.
“We had a very short discussion on Russia, Ukraine and the Minsk Agreements that led to a political decision to extend the sanctions for another six months,” an unnamed source in the EU Council told journalists in Brussels.
The decision came at the bloc’s summit and is expected to be confirmed in the coming days. According to the source, the move was triggered by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who reportedly urged the leaders to prolong sanctions against Moscow due to the current state of implementation of the Minsk peace accord on Ukraine.
“It was said that there are no changes, so sanctions are prolonged, the sanctions regime remains unchanged,” the source added.
Meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte said that the renewal of the punitive measures against Russia should not be automatic. Italy has repeatedly voiced concerns over the sanctions, saying they were having a huge negative impact on Italian firms’ exports to Russia.
“We will reaffirm the principle that there should be nothing automatic about the renewal of sanctions,” the official told parliament. “We need to be very careful about this. Sanctions should be a means and not constitute an end.”
The penalties were initially introduced in 2014 over Moscow’s alleged involvement in the Ukraine crisis and its reunification with Crimea. Sanctions target Russia’s financial, energy and defense sectors, along with some government officials, businessmen and public figures.
The Kremlin responded by imposing an embargo on agricultural produce, food and raw materials on countries that imposed sanctions on Russia. Since then both sides have repeatedly broadened and extended the restrictive measures.
The Putin-Trump Helsinki Summit Can Produce Practical Results
By Arkady SAVITSKY | Strategic Culture Foundation | 29.06.2018
A Russian-US summit will take place on July 16 in Helsinki. No breathtaking breakthroughs are looming. This event will be quite different from Richard Nixon’s historic visit to the USSR in 1972, when three major security agreements were signed. There is a wide gap between what the leaders want to achieve and what they can really do, other than exchange pleasantries, make a few jokes, slap each other’s shoulders, and shake hands for the cameras. But despite all the deep divisions on many issues, the tensions that are running high, the negative attitude of the US Congress toward Moscow, and the other factors that cloud that relationship, the planned summit could produce concrete and tangible results, contrary to what is generally believed.
If history is any guide, dividing the agenda into “baskets” makes sense. It made the 1975 Helsinki Act possible. One basket should include problems that are of fundamental importance but with solutions that still look fairly distant. Another one could hold the problems for which some success could be achieved right now or in the near future. The third one should be left for miscellaneous issues that require some discussion. Some of those might pop up randomly.
The first basket could include the New START, the INF Treaty, Russia-NATO relations, the problems related to the 50th anniversary of the Non-Proliferation Treaty on July 1, and also other arms-control issues that need to be addressed to prevent backsliding toward an unfettered race and dangerous confrontation. There are some areas where agreement can be reached, but ratification is normally a very complicated and time-consuming procedure. We need to remember the positive experience of the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives (PNIs) and make practical use of it. Progress on arms control is critical for the overall improvement of the bilateral relationship. It is not normal to have a situation in which the major agreements appear to have one foot in the grave and this needs to be changed. If a dialog on arms control were revived, one could say the meeting had been a big step forward.
The time is right for the parties to begin talks on easing the tensions that have been ramped up by the US ballistic missile defense plans in Europe. Mutually-agreed verification measures could be prepared for consideration by experts, if the leaders told them to sit at the round table and start working. A dialog on cybersecurity could be launched at the level of working groups. The presidents could exchange opinions about ways to gradually end the sanctions war.
The second basket should include the revival of the Incidents at Sea Agreement (INCSEA) and the Agreement on the Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities. Those two accords that seem to be somewhat forgotten nowadays have proven their effectiveness and constitute a legal basis that can be built upon. The presidents could confirm the validity of those historic agreements and pledge compliance with them, in order to avoid the sparks that can start big fires — a scenario that must be avoided at any cost.
The parties could pledge to remain faithful to the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, especially the provision that keeps the parties from deploying substantial forces in the proximity of each other’s borders. The US could agree to suspend those activities in Europe that are viewed by Moscow as provocations and preparatory steps for a military intervention. In return, Russia could abstain from deploying some weapons systems that could hit American assets on the US continent. The presidents could agree to become more transparent when preparing for military exercises. They could also limit their scope. Some confidence-building measures could be agreed on within the bilateral format, which could be added to the Vienna Document.
Obviously, the agenda will include Syria. This is an issue that needs to be discussed very candidly behind closed doors. It’s important to understand what goals each side is trying to achieve and see if the existing divergences could be narrowed. The presidents could agree not to take steps to do anything that would aggravate the situation in Ukraine. If no agreement about what to do next seems imminent, the problem could be set aside for the time being.
The leaders could agree to revitalize their bilateral contacts at various levels, including between working groups, NGOs, experts, scholars, lawmakers, businesses, etc. Two-way contacts are vital for moving forward, especially if they touch on arms control or other security-related issues. The number of diplomats stationed in each country, which fell after the wave of expulsions, could be increased, making embassy and consular services more efficient, and steps to move in this direction could also be approved at the meeting.
The third basket could include a preliminary exchange of views on potential bilateral cooperation in Libya and an exploration of ways to spur bilateral economic and cultural projects. Launching negotiations on avoiding a military standoff in the Arctic could help create a much better environment. This problem may not seem as urgent as some other security issues, but a better understanding of each other’s intentions would promote overall progress in the relationship. The prospects for joint space programs should also be studied.
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have a good basis, such as their personal chemistry, to build on. There are no magic wands they could wave to make the fundamental problems that divide the two countries disappear, but they can turn the tide and start making step-by-step progress here and there. As a result, the two nations would be involved in dialog rather than confrontation.
New York Times exposes its own hypocrisy with juvenile cartoon of Trump & Putin as gay lovers

© The New York Times
By Danielle Ryan | RT |
A recent cartoon produced by the New York Times depicts Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin as gay lovers. It was clearly intended to be hilariously funny while also making a salient political point. In reality, it does neither.
The cartoon is part two of a three-part series called ‘Trump Bites’ from critically-acclaimed animator Bill Plympton. Let me explain the contents of the minute-long video to save you from having to watch it yourself.
It begins with a cartoon Trump standing in front of a mirror altering his bow tie while a portrait of a topless Putin hangs on the wall behind him. Audio of the real Trump confirming that he does have “a relationship” with Putin begins to play and the doorbell of Trump’s cartoon house rings.
The visitor is none other than a muscly, topless (again) Putin. Trump’s cartoon heart begins to beat out of his chest and he hands it over to the macho Russian as a gift. Audio of the real Trump claiming Putin has done a “brilliant and amazing” job plays over the scene.
Now Donald and Vlad are sitting in a car together. The Russian is in the driving seat. Witty political metaphor? Check! Cartoon Trump leans over and places his tiny hand on top of Putin’s excessively large hand. Overdone dig at the size of Trump’s hands? Check!
Suddenly, the car morphs into a unicorn (stay with me) and the star-crossed lovers are riding on its back through a pink sky filled with butterflies, hearts and rainbows. Putin turns around to kiss Trump and we get a close-up of tongues swirling.
Back in his bedroom after his date with the Russian, cartoon Trump is seen with a gun in hand shooting at his TV screen — an obvious reference to his distaste for “fake news” and the like. Roll credits.
Describing the cartoon on its website, the Times explains that it “plays out in a teenager’s bedroom, where the fantasies of this forbidden romance come to life.” But, in case it wasn’t already clear, the end result isn’t funny. It doesn’t do a particularly good job of making any political point, either — unless you’re counting the reinforcement of a tired, boring and unproven narrative of “collusion” and “bromance” between Trump and his Russian counterpart.
What it does do, very well in fact, is highlight the hypocrisy of the New York Times. Despite its socially liberal credentials, the paper of record has seen fit to use gay stereotypes to malign political figures it does not like. The very fact that the men are portrayed as gay is what is supposed to make the cartoon so funny.
Unsurprisingly, gay people on Twitter were quick to point out that mocking people — even fake versions of real people — for being gay isn’t actually very funny at all. Journalist Glenn Greenwald (who happens to be gay himself) called out the Times for “using one disgusting gay stereotype after the next” in an attempt to make a political point. “Homophobia for progressive messaging is still bigotry,” he wrote on Twitter. He’s right. Another gay Twitter user hit out at the Times for its “vulgar” and “homophobic” negative stereotyping, while others blasted the paper for the tone-deaf decision to publish the “gay-bashing” cartoon during Pride Month, of all times.
The Times’ decision to produce the ‘lol they’re gay’ cartoon seems particularly odd, given how oh-so-concerned they pretend to be with the plight of gay people in Russia. Then again, much of the Western concern over gay rights in Russia is and always has been insincere; a political tool that Western nations use to hammer Russia with while ignoring the far, far worse treatment that gay people are subjected to in countries like Saudi Arabia — a religious dictatorship which is hailed by US political leaders for its progressiveness if it makes even the mildest step towards modernity.
Recall the stunt pulled by the Paddy Power bookmakers during the World Cup. The company proudly announced that it would donate €10,000 to gay rights charities every time Russia scored a goal. The irony of announcing this charitable endeavor during a match against a country (Saudi Arabia) where being gay (MAY BE PUNISHED) by death was apparently entirely lost on them.
Anyway, back to the Times. Even if we forgive the newspaper for its foray into homophobic stereotyping to malign public figures, there’s still the fact that the cartoon is boring and stale and one would struggle to justify classing it as political satire.
There is nothing particularly cutting edge about it. It’s a simple rehash of a tired narrative — just with some homophobia thrown in for laughs. The cartoon series bills itself as satire — but satire is supposed to be original, biting, thought-provoking, clever. This fails on every count.
Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance journalist. Having lived and worked in the US, Germany and Russia, she is currently based in Budapest, Hungary. Her work has been featured by Salon, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, Russia Direct, teleSUR, The BRICS Post and others. Follow her on Twitter @DanielleRyanJ, check out her Facebook page, or visit her website: danielle-ryan.com
CARLA ORTIZ explains Syria to OAN
HANDS OFF SYRIA | June 25, 2018
Bolivian-American movie star Carla Ortiz explains terrorism in Syria (including the White Helmets and its western sponsors) to Pearson Sharp of One American News. 22 June 2018


