Posted on

The Shadow of 9/11 Falls On Syria

www.newmatilda.com/2013/09/11/shadow-911-falls-syria

Published on New Matilda, 11 Sept 2013

“We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them … may God grant us wisdom.”

With this prayer, US President George W. Bush vowed revenge [6] against Al Qaeda soon after the World Trade Centre attacks of 11 September 2001. “We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest,” he said. “And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.”

In his speech today on the eve of the September 11 anniversary, Obama was at pains to distance himself from Al Qaeda.

But his description of the Syrian government as “the forces of tyranny and extremism” could have been his predecessor’s description of Al Qaeda 12 years ago.

Obama declared that “Al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing”. He will ask Congress to postpone a vote authorising violence, saying “it is beyond our means to right every wrong … America is not the world’s policeman.” However, a “pinprick strike” could compound the chaos and embolden Al Qaeda who would welcome “allies” firing from the sky. He fails to urge “those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos” of the beheadings of his fellow Christians in Syria, now an endangered species, and the demolition of sacred churches that mark the history of Christianity.

The US will give time and space for a Russian-led diplomatic solution to the issue of chemical weapons. Despite Obama’s claims that “my administration tried diplomacy …and negotiations”, he fails to cite a single example, siding instead with the rhetoric of the rebels that we will never negotiate with a dictator.

But is Obama, like Bush, really trying to “starve” the terrorists, who presumably feed on chaos? Many would prefer to forget about Bush’s statements given the ironic alliances made by the US. Earlier this year, Obama pledged $250 million of “non-lethal aid” to the Free Syrian Army, a default ally of terrorist armies in “the opposition” affiliated with Al Qaeda. Contrary to Obama’s repeated claims, this is far from a “civil war”.

One opposition group, the Al Qaeda-linked “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”, was accused of assassinating a Free Syrian Army commander in July. The “Islamic Front” has vowed to impose Sharia law in Syria [10]. “Jabhat al Nusra” has vowed allegiance to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Given the war logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, intelligence and arms are shared and flow freely among these allies. This means that US aid may have easily fallen into the hands of Al Qaeda, the sworn enemy of President Bush, still invoked as a reason that intervention in Syria is called for. Why didn’t the US align with the Syrian government years ago in the face of a common enemy: the Wahabi Jihadist ideolology.

Obama’s rhetoric today marks a significant change to Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement at the G20: “This is not the time to be spectators to a slaughter… Neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence.”

If the US has principles to uphold, but also recognises it can’t militarily police the whole world, then some interesting questions arise: Kerry alleges that his “significant body of open source intelligence” revealed that “for three days before the attack, the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area, making preparations.” Why wasn’t the information used to intervene then, or to warn Syrian civilians and prevent over 1400 fatalities? Why was such intelligence not immediately given to the UN weapons inspection team who were on the ground exactly three days before the war crime?

Moreover, if the US leaders are “serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use”, where was their “international obligation” when over 1400 Gazans were killed under Operation Cast Lead in January 2009? Obama did not draw an unequivocal red line that “we will not tolerate their use” against “our ally Israel” because it has his “unshakeable support”. According to Amnesty International, Israel “indiscriminately fired white phosphorous over densely populated residential areas.” These unlawful US-imported chemical weapons burn flesh to the bone. Nonetheless US leaders were content to remain spectators to that particular slaughter.

Whether in Gaza or Ghouta, this selective concern makes a cruel mockery of the principles espoused after the World Trade Centre attacks.

Twelve years on, Bush’s prayer, “God grant us wisdom”, has been challenged by Pope Francis. While Obama was still insisting that a “limited” attack on Syria was “the right thing to do”, Pope Francis said that “never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake … war begets war.”

What an irony! While President Obama in St Petersburg was making the moral case for a military solution in Syria, Pope Francis in St Peter’s Square called for a “day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria” last Saturday. The Pope’s call was heeded and echoed by leaders of many faiths, believing that God alone grants them wisdom.

The last papal day of prayer was declared by Pope John Paul II in the wake of the World Trade Centre attacks 12 years ago. He invited religious leaders to Assisi to pray for “true peace … religion must never become a cause of conflict, hatred and violence.”

Posted on

The great orator does the great grovel

OBAMA: THE GREAT ORATOR DOES THE GREAT GROVEL

‘There should be no shred of doubt by now – when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back’

The lullaby from the mouth of US President Obama was music to the ears of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It rang more like an annual report by a CEO to his shareholders, trumpeting about his return on their investment.

Obama was demonstrating how he ticked all boxes of his key performance indicators so he could secure sponsorship for his next presidential election campaign ‘during this political season’.

But one could tear shreds off his predictable and pathetic grovel.

When Obama reiterated a two state solution with ‘a secure Israel that lives side by side with an independent Palestinian state’, did he forget that security should be ‘sacrosanct’ for both sides, yet only one was the nuclear superpower of the Middle East region? Did he forget that when Palestine applied to the United Nations Security Council for independent statehood within its pre-1967 borders last September, his administration threatened to (ab)use its permanent member status and veto their bid?

When Obama was chest beating that ‘Israel’s place as a Jewish and democratic state must be protected’, did he overlook the oxymoron? The enshrined ‘privileging of one ethno-religious group over another cannot be seen as compatible with democratic values’, as documented by a new book by Ben White ‘Palestinians in Israel’. Moreover, Israel can no longer claim to be the sole ‘democratic state’ in the Middle East given the recent ‘Arab Spring’ elections.

When Obama concedes that ‘the United States and Israel both assess that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon’, why are no alarm bells ringing about his predecessor’s invasion of Iraq on the defunct ‘weapons of mass destruction’ premise? His provocative language of possibilities should be frightfully familiar: ‘There are risks that an Iranian nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of a terrorist organisation’.

While the Obama administration depicts Iran as a real and present danger, the November report by the International Atomic Energy Agency depicts circular arguments: Its intelligence sources are unnamed ‘Member States’, presumably the USA, and its summary is dubious: ‘The agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities’.

When Obama laments that ‘a nuclear-armed Iran would thoroughly undermine the non-proliferation regime that we’ve done so much to build’, does he forget that its opposite number Israel refused to sign the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970, which puts Israel in the same camp as India, Pakistan and ex signatory North Korea? Does he forget that unlike the signatory Iran who is now indicted by the IAEA for failing to honour its ‘safeguards’ agreement, Israel operates a policy of ‘nuclear ambiguity’, refusing to confirm or deny having atomic weapons? Does he forget that Israel’s over 200 nuclear warheads and weapons of mass destruction were mostly ‘made in USA’? Does he forget that in 2009, the IAEA passed a resolution which ‘calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards’ and that Israel refused with impunity and without sanctions? Does he forget that he asked Israel to sign the Treaty during the 2010 nuclear summit, and they still refused?

When Obama grandstands about ‘nuclear weapons in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction’, why does he turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy of Israel denying the Palestinian dispossession (al Naqba) of 1948? Israel does not need to threaten to wipe its Arab neighbours off the map, but flex its military muscle as it did when Gaza was reduced to an inhuman abattoir in December 2008. With over 1300 Gazans bombed through collective punishment, an overkill of one hundred times more than the Israelis, there was no question about who could seriously be wiped off the map.

With the five Iranian nuclear scientists killed in Iran since 2007, US secretary of State Hilary Clinton hastened to ‘categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran’. However, proxies and dissidents can be paid like sponsored terrorists. With Israel intent on maintaining its regional nuclear weapons monopoly and Obama pledging that ‘we will do what it takes to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge’, does the truth lie behind another policy of ‘terrorist ambiguity’?

When Obama annunciates an ultimatum for Iran between ‘a path that would allow them to rejoin the community of nations if they meet their international obligations, or a path that leads to an escalating series of consequences if they don’t’, does he forget that it is Israel that has abandoned their international obligations? By his own admission, Obama concedes that ‘the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the United Nations’ even if ‘there was not a lot of applause’ by the UN General Assembly. Obama has ensured that Israel was protected from any consequences, unlike Iran who has endured four sets of US-led sanctions.

Obama’s oration should be shredded as evidence of his desperation to appease his shareholders. In his rhetoric about building ‘a better world…where our people can live free from fear’, it is clear who he fears if they do not butter his bread, which should make us all more fearful.