Interview with the Russian Ambassador in Lebanon A. Zasypkin for Novaya Gazeta

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post. Be sure to share it widely.

April 08, 2019

Interview with the Ambassador of Russia in Lebanon A. Zasypkin for Novaya Gazeta, published on March 15, 2019

Translated by Dmitry for The Saker Blog

Question: Now representatives of Russia on various occasions are talking about the need to facilitate the return of refugees. Lebanon is one of the most involved countries in this problem, with 1.5 million refugees concentrated here. Would you tell us how the process is going on here in Lebanon, and how exactly Russia could contribute to it?

Answer: Lebanese, like Russia, have in recent years been in favor of the return of Syrian refugees to their homeland under the presence of, of course, appropriate conditions. The opportunity for a serious study of the question was opened when significant territories were freed from terrorists in Syria. That is, the moment has come for qualitative changes for the better, including the massive repatriation of refugees or, more precisely, of temporarily displaced persons.

In July last year, we called for this and began to contribute to the solution of the tasks in this context. Of course, almost all of this concerns efforts in Syria. Infrastructure is being restored there, housing is being built. The Syrian authorities are taking administrative and other measures to facilitate the resettlement of returning refugees. In order to coordinate efforts, the Russian side created a center for their reception, distribution and placement in Damascus. The Interdepartmental Coordination Headquarters meets regularly in Moscow. As for Lebanon, our Embassy cooperates with local authorities within the framework of the Lebanon-Russian Committee.

It must be said that the Lebanese immediately welcomed the Russian initiative. However, it should be borne in mind that the national consensus in Lebanon refers only to the rejection of the prospect of naturalization of Syrian refugees in Lebanon. But as to whether it is necessary to encourage repatriation in the present conditions, there is no unity in the political class. President M.Aoun aims to move towards the realization of this goal. His line enjoys widespread support in parliament and government.

But there is another opinion – that the task of returning refugees, like the reconstruction in Syria, should be postponed until a political settlement of the Syrian conflict is reached. This is the same position that the Western and rich Arab countries of the Persian Gulf adhere to. They remain opponents of the Syrian authorities and seek to show that the situation is still far from normalization.

Whatever it was, but work on repatriation in accordance with all international criteria in the safe areas goes. Logistically, this is ensured by the General Directorate of General Security of Lebanon, which receives appeals from refugees and sends them to the Syrian Security Service.

Question: Do you know about cases when people are denied?

Answer: Yes, there are such cases. For example, if the Syrian security authorities have data on criminal activity within illegal armed groups, then these persons are denied entry because they are subject to arrest. That is, in order not to aggravate the situation, someone should not yet return to the country. I believe that there is common sense. Repatriation should be encouraged, but it must be that everything is under control. It is impossible in one sitting to open all the gateways.

For the future, a lot will probably depend on how the issue of amnesty will evolve. At first, there was nothing at all; now there is an amnesty law for those who evaded military service. And this has opened up more opportunities for returns. In addition, it is important to complete the elimination of the terrorist presence, in particular in Idlib, to restore state sovereignty throughout Syria. This will improve the public climate, strengthen stability in general.

Question: Alexander Sergeevich, we were told that Hezbollah has a completely independent mandate for the return of refugees. Is Hezbollah involved?

Answer: As for the mandate, there is not such a notion. Several parties, including Hezbollah, are trying to help. They are in contact with the refugees, clarify the possibilities of their settlement upon return, make lists with them, and then transfer them to the Lebanese General Security Authority.

Question: And if we deviate a little from the question of the refugees – how do we develop relations with Hezbollah?

Answer: Our approach is determined by the fact that Hezbollah is both a political party and a detachment of resistance to the Israeli occupation. This happened in the 80s in the framework of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In recent years, while maintaining confrontation with Israel, Hezbollah went to war on terrorism in Syria. On the very same takfiri terrorism embodied by the branches of “Al Qaeda” such as al-Nusra, ISIL and the like, against which Russia is fighting. So on the Syrian front, we fight together with one common enemy.

"In these circumstances, the United States and its allies moved to a new scenario. They called Iran and Hezbollah the main destabilizing factor, the source of terrorism, began to create a regional bloc against the “axis of resistance”. That is, they turned everything upside down and blamed those who blocked the way to terrorism..."

At the same time, it should be noted that, within Lebanon, Hezbollah plays an important stabilizing role, stands for the cooperation of the main parties in parliament and government.

To better understand what is happening now, you need to step back a bit and remember the so-called. “Arab Spring”. It all started with the nomination of democratic slogans, but quickly moved into the stage of armed confrontation. Almost everywhere, Sunni radical groups have come to the fore. This card was played by the West to overthrow those objectionable Arab regimes that they themselves could not reach, unlike, for example, S. Hussein in Iraq or M. Gaddafi in Libya. Syria was in the focus of the conspiracy because of its key role in the region. Since President B. al-Assad pursued a policy in line with the “axis of resistance”, he had to be overthrown at any cost. From here arose a powerful offensive by illegal armed groups. However, this plan was thwarted by the joint efforts of the “axis of resistance” and Russia. They managed to turn the tide. And today there is not much left before the complete liberation of the Syrian territory.

In these circumstances, the United States and its allies moved to a new scenario. They called Iran and Hezbollah the main destabilizing factor, the source of terrorism, began to create a regional bloc against the “axis of resistance”. That is, they turned everything upside down and blamed those who blocked the way to terrorism. That is, for them, the “axis of resistance” is the number one enemy, while the process of Arab-Israeli normalization is proceeding in parallel.

If you look at this situation strategically, you get the following. It is known that the United States, in advancing its projects in all parts of the world, is striving in every possible way to blacken its opponents, to shift to them the responsibility for their own illegal actions. In the Middle East, one of the basic elements of such tactics at this stage is the myth of “Iranian expansion.” They say Iran wants to create its own empire. This “concept” is so strongly promoted that many began to take this statement as something for granted. In fact, the facts are such that the Iranian positions in Iraq, for example, strengthened, after US aggression and their occupation of Iraqi territory led to ruin in all spheres. It was necessary to somehow pull the country out of the abyss, to fight terrorism, in which the Iranians helped the Iraqis. That is, it was a reaction, a response to the destructive actions of the United States.

In Syria, Iran and Hezbollah appeared only at a certain stage of the confrontation, when militants tore up the country, turned the captured areas into terrorist enclaves. It was then that the Syrian authorities turned to Iran, Hezbollah, Russia for help. Now, suddenly, someone says: “Iran must leave as soon as possible.” This, they say, will help stabilize the situation.

But if so, then who will ensure that terrorist groups do not return? Those who supported them all these years? That is, it is proposed to give initiative to the enemies of Syria.

But it will not be so, that’s for sure. Normalization in Syria should go in such a way that there were no disruptions, relapses of exacerbations. In this regard, a necessary element is to ensure the superiority of the Syrian army and its allies. In addition, only the Syrian official authorities can make a decision on the presence of Iran. This is their sovereign right.

The United States, in its own actions, emphasizes sanctions pressure on members of the “axis of resistance”. To this are added the attempts to sow discord within these countries. In Lebanon, we note it all the time.

It is difficult to predict how far the confrontational manifestations promoted by the Americans will go. Broadly speaking, this is a continuation of their concept of “controlled chaos.” But, as experience shows, there is enough power and skills for creating chaos, but they cannot get to manage it. In addition, this concept has a fundamental flaw – the unresolved Palestinian problem, as well as the continuation of the Israeli occupation of part of the territory of Syria and Lebanon. In this regard, the question arises: can the “deal of the century” proposed by President Donald Trump as an option for a final settlement in the Middle East?

I think not, because the data known about it does not allow Palestinians, Arab patriotic forces and the whole “Arab street” to count on this plan.

There is also no doubt that the axis of resistance, including Hezbollah, will be firmly opposed. Even the best friends of the United States among the Arabs will not agree to the transfer of Jerusalem to Israel, the nullification of the problem of Palestinian refugees and the creation of a Palestinian quasi-state.

Question: The fact that Hezbollah is a Lebanese political party on the one hand, and on the other hand an organization that wages war on the territory of a neighboring state, does [it] not contradict the position of the Lebanese state, denoting its clear neutrality in this situation?

Answer: As Lebanese more precisely put it, not neutrality, but a policy of distance from conflict situations in the region. That is, it is necessary to prevent the negative impact of what is happening on Lebanon and not to intervene. This slogan is good for maintaining the priority of internal stability. But it’s impossible to fully implement it on the external arena. On the one hand, some Lebanese went to Syria to fight against the Syrian authorities. Then bandit formations leaked from Syria to Lebanon, but they were blocked in the mountains, and then destroyed or driven away. In turn, Hezbollah took part in the battles on the side of the Syrian regular army.

Hezbollah’s decision, like the Russian’s similar decision, was dictated by the threatening situation in Syria. If terrorists came to power there, the country would be destroyed, lawlessness would follow the example of Libya. In that case, the war would move to Lebanon. Gangs had a plan to reach through the north of Lebanon to the Mediterranean Sea. They would raise a terrorist wave, trying to stir up interfaith confusion on Lebanese soil. But all this did not happen, so it is necessary to recognize the fact that the “axis of resistance” and Russia saved not only Syria, but also Lebanon.

Question: But now great hopes are being placed on Russia, including in protecting the current Syrian regime from the influence of Iran.

Answer: I will say frankly that the Syrian government need not be protected from the influence of Iran. There is a strong and unshakable alliance between Damascus, Tehran and Hezbollah. As such, it will remain in the future. A view exists that the seemingly emerging restoration of Syria’s ties with Arab countries will lead to a weakening of Syrian-Iranian interaction and coordination, but that is an illusion. Syria was and will remain the link of the “axis of resistance”. Now we should not think about the alleged difficulties with the Iranians, but about the complete elimination of the terrorist threat and the restoration of the sovereignty of the Syrian state throughout the territory, which foresees, first of all, the withdrawal of the illegitimate foreign military, primarily the Americans.

Question: For Russia, there is no problem because it actually appeared between Iran and Israel, between two allies, whose interests are simply diametrically opposed?

Answer: Leaving aside the terminology about the allies, I want to say essentially... There is no contradiction for Russia, since we, along with Iran and Hezbollah, are helping Syria in the fight against terrorism, and with Israel have agreed to avoid airborne clashes and other incidents. So these are different things. If we talk about the existing for many years, the confrontation of Israel with the “axis of resistance”, it initially lay in the wake of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As such, in essence, it remains, although recently the “rules of the game” on this front have become tougher. At the same time, it should be noted that no one is interested in inciting a major conflict, as a result there would be huge casualties on both sides. It is particularly necessary to emphasize that it is precisely this balance of mutual deterrence that determines the situation in the “blue line” zone between Israel and Lebanon. On the Lebanese side, Hezbollah’s missile potential is of the utmost importance.

Russia, on the other hand, believes that it is necessary to work towards improving the situation in the region and restarting the peace process in order to achieve a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement on an internationally recognized basis, including the UN resolutions and the 2002 Arab peace initiative.

Question: In the international arena, there are often reproaches to Russia – that it supports Assad and makes efforts to ensure that he remains the Syrian president. And what is actually the position of our country on the future of the Syrian leadership?

Answer: It would be strange if it were not reproached. Only not in the “international arena”, but in the ruling circles of the West and their allies in the region, and in the relevant media. In general, they wanted to achieve the overthrow of President Assad. But their plans were thwarted largely by the efforts of Russia. Moreover, strictly speaking, we took the side of the legitimate authorities, helped repel the onslaught of terrorists and save the state.

Speaking about responsibility, let us ask ourselves the question: should President Assad have to give way to the opposition? Leaving aside the issue of legality from the point of view of observance of the constitution, let’s face it, then the Muslim Brotherhood would come to power, which indeed have become the basis of hundreds of militant groups funded by the sponsors of terrorism. Thousands of takfirists from all over the world have joined them. So President Assad has shown a statesman’s approach, not capitulating to extremists.

As for the future, the Russian position from the very beginning and still is the same – the Syrian people must decide without external interference. This is in fact a universal approach, consistent with international law. Finally, let’s look at the perspective. First, it is impossible to imagine that Syria, having defeated terrorism, will change the political course in exchange for grants and loans. Secondly, the question of the president is that he should play the role of a guarantor of state preservation. President Assad is such a guarantor in the eyes of millions of Syrians. Can there be an alternative in this regard – it is up to the Syrian people to decide at elections, and not up to external forces.

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff we publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for our website, which will get you an email notification for everything we publish.

Original source: http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/international_safety/regprla/-/asset_publisher/YCxLFJnKuD1W/content/id/3571159

THIS WORK IS LICENSED UNDER A Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Be sure to get the most unique history of the Russo-American conflict now spanning almost a century! The book that every American should read.

Nuclear Armageddon or peace? That is the question.
And here’s the book that answers it.
CLICK HERE to buy The Russian Peace Threat.

‘Lone wolf’ myth covers up possible Mossad role in New Zealand terrorist attack

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Dateline: 25 March 2019

Brenton Tarrant (right) regards Anders Breivik, the notorious Norwegian white supremacist mass murderer, as an inspiration. The authorities believe they fancy themselves members of a reborn "Knights Templar" organisation designed to protect whites from the menace of a darker "horde" invading their home countries.

[dropcap]E[/dropcap]ver since the news broke on March 15 of two consecutive mass shootings at the Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand, corporate media has been determined to establish that suspect Brenton Tarrant acted alone in the terrorist attacks that took the lives of 50 innocent Muslim worshippers and wounded 50 others. While mainstream media has been predictably eager to parade the tragedy as another chapter in the wave of rising Islamophobia and right-wing extremism globally, they have put equal effort into conscientiously avoiding any evidence that contradicts the ‘lone wolf’ theory they decided on in the initial hours following the first mass shooting in New Zealand since 1997.

Whenever terrorism is committed by Arabs or Muslims, the fourth estate is usually anxious to speculate whether or not the suspect is connected to a larger radical syndicate. However, the same scrutiny is seldom applied to white nationalists like Tarrant. In fact, they are even hesitant to label it ‘terrorism’ at all, with everyone from The Daily Telegraph to the fanatical Zionist Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News settling for the choice words ‘mass shooting.’ While Tarrant denies being part of any group in his public declaration, he does hint that he is part of a broader extremist network:

“I am not a direct member of any organization or group, though I have donated to many nationalist groups and have interacted with many more. No group ordered my attack, I make the decision myself. Though I did contact the reborn Knights Templar for a blessing in support of the attack, which was given.”

As many have noted, the “Knights Templar” is the name of an anti-Muslim militant group that another infamous right-wing terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, claimed to belong to. During the 2011 Norway attacks, Breivik targeted a government building in the city of Oslo and a youth camp of the ruling Labour party on the island of Utøya in a sequential car bombing and mass shooting that killed a total of 77 people. However, the media and prosecutors in Breivik’s trial were insistent that the group was fictional and the only possibility was that he was an ‘army of one’ while suffering from a psychiatric disorder, another trait that is apparently only applicable to white-skinned terrorists. There was no serious inquiry into whether he was part of a larger nexus, even though he had direct contact with groups like the English Defense League (EDL), the British far right Islamophobic group led by neo-fascist agitator Tommy Robinson. Breivik was portrayed as a fundamentalist Christian but was curiously a member of the Norwegian Order of Freemasons, an organization with a history of ties to the espionage world and susceptible to infiltration because of its inherent secrecy. The original Knights Templar, or “Templars,” were a Christian army founded in the 10th century who initially shielded pilgrims voyaging to the Holy Land and later fought against Muslims during the Crusades while the name is drawn from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The killer documents his actions.

What has been downplayed by the yellow press is the specific brand of Islamophobic extremism that was the basis of Tarrant’s attacks. His ideology is revealed in a 73-page manifesto, entitled “The Great Replacement” in reference to the ‘white genocide’ theory held by white nationalist identitarians, which he dispatched less than ten minutes prior to the ambush in emails to several media outlets and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s office. While the corporate press is correct that Tarrant and Breivik clearly follow the practices of the anti-Islam xenophobic movement on the rise in Europe, North America and now Oceania, the key element they have deliberately avoided mentioning is a strong collective affinity for the state of Israel. The coverage of Christchurch has repeated the same pattern displayed following the 2011 Norway attacks where the distinguishing characteristic of the extremism both culprits adhere to is of a staunchly pro-Zionist variety which has been decidedly overlooked. In the eight years between the two attacks, the pro-Israel European right has only augmented in size. In his manifesto, Brenton Tarrant even boasted the unverified claim to have had “brief contact with Knight Justiciar Breivik” while taking “true inspiration” from him. His Norwegian idol had his own 1,500 page manifesto where Israel was approvingly name-dropped nearly 400 times while he declared:

“So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists.”

The combination of far right nationalism and support for Israel may seem like an unlikely combination, but it is an ideology shared by most of the Islamophobic and anti-immigrant political parties throughout Europe that have performed impressively well in European Parliament elections. These include Hungary’s Fidesz, the Italian League and Five Star Movement, the Flemish Flaams Belang, Poland’s Law and Justice, Belgian People’s Party, the Progress Party of Norway (of which Breivik was a member), True Finns Party, France’s National Rally, Alternative for Deutschland, and many others. It is likely that Tarrant, like Breivik, is not anti-semitic and actually views Jews as ‘allies’ in a civilizational crusade against Islam. Just as Israel has helped orchestrate the US wars in the Middle East against its enemies that has contributed to the mass influx of refugees seeking asylum in the West, it has fostered the Islamophobic backlash to it by supporting the growing far right movement that is ascendant.

Survivors and supporters.

Following the tragedy in Christchurch, it was revealed that 28-year old Tarrant had traveled extensively throughout Europe, the Middle East and Asia, including to Afghanistan, Pakistan and even North Korea. The year prior, he also visited Israel for nine days, just as his fellow Christian Zionist Breivik had done several times prior to 2011. Tarrant’s journey in Europe included a stop in Ukraine, a hotbed of neo-Nazi activity and as it happens during the massacre he donned the SS wolf’s hook symbol used by the right wing paramilitary group Azov Battalion to which Israel has provided weapons support in its fight against pro-Russian separatists. The blend of such considerable travel activity while stockpiling a cache of semi-automatic firearms with a digital footprint espousing his extremist views online makes the likelihood that Tarrant managed to remain under the radar of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (SIS) difficult to believe. It is especially doubtful they would be unable to detect him considering he was reportedly interviewed by New Zealand police prior to obtaining his firearms license in 2017.

Judging by the Facebook live-streamed video of the massacre shot by the suspect himself wearing a GoPro head-mounted camera that resembled a first-person shooter video game shows he was no amateur and possibly professionally trained as a militant. Given his extensive travel and the apparent expertise used to carry out the attacks, there are many legitimate questions about how his ventures were sponsored and whether he had accomplices. Police found undetonated car bombs in addition to his arsenal and believe he was planning on carrying out a third attack with them. What was he doing in his travels? Was he really able to finance everything alone using crypto-currency investments as purported by the media? He could very well have been a patsy in a larger plot or received support from abroad. For instance, from a certain national intelligence service whose notorious motto is “for by cunning stratagems, you wage war.”

Mossad covert operations have been exposed several times over the years violating New Zealand’s sovereignty and international law which caused a series of diplomatic rows between the two countries. Most recently was in 2011 following a 6.2 magnitude earthquake in Christchurch which caused significant damage to the city and killed 185 people, coincidentally the very same week as the attacks in Norway by Anders Breivik. Incredibly, a stone structure of a building collapsed onto a van during the earthquake which killed a man inside who turned out to be an Israeli national. His death accidentally unearthed a ring of Mossad agents after the man was discovered with multiple fake passports and USB flash drives which contained confidential data believed to have been illegally downloaded from the New Zealand police’s national computer system. The other agents in the Israeli sleeper cell were able to flee the country less than a day after his body was discovered, probably to avoid the fallout that occurred after an earlier incident in the country just a few years prior. In 2004, two Israeli men who turned out to be Mossad agents were arrested trying to obtain fraudulent passports and travel documentation that included stealing the identity of a quadriplegic. The two men were subsequently jailed for six months for engaging in criminal enterprise.

The world was briefly reminded of this mysterious case when Donald Trump as a presidential candidate in 2016 made the wild exaggeration that on 9/11 he had personally observed “thousands of Muslims” celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers across the river in New Jersey. It is likely that Trump mixed up two different reports from 9/11, one of Reuters footage widely circulated by major networks of a small group of Arabs in East Jerusalem celebrating the attacks and the reports about the Israelis arrested in New Jersey who were initially believed to have been of “Middle Eastern appearance” and descent. One wonders if Trump would accurately recall his other observations that morning now that he is in the service of his Saudi and Israeli masters. Needless to say, this widely suppressed story which should have been front page news led many to rightly suspect there was prior knowledge and even direct involvement among Israeli intelligence in the 9/11 attacks, along with a trove of other evidence.

Relations had returned to normal between the countries until December 2016 when along with Malaysia, Senegal, Venezuela and others, New Zealand co-sponsored the controversial United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 which condemned Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories during the last months of the Obama administration. The same motion briefly became mired in the Trump-Russia investigation when former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI about lobbying activities related to the resolution during the transition between administrations on behalf of Israel. The Trump White House has since proven to be the most fanatically Zionist presidency since the foundation of the Jewish state in 1948. Over the years, New Zealand has shown a willingness to stand up to Jerusalem and its brazen disregard for international law that other nations could learn from. Despite being a small nation, it has played an important role in pro-Palestinian activism and the prospect of Palestinian statehood just as it did in protesting South African Apartheid in the 1980s. In 2018, when New Zealand-born popular musician Lorde canceled a concert in Tel Aviv in solidarity with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, she became the target of vicious Zionist smear campaign which saw right-wing Trumpist Rabbi Schmuley Boteach take out a full-page ad in The Washington Post denouncing her as a bigot while a $13,000 lawsuit was filed by the Mossad-linked Shurat HaDin lawfare NGO. Meanwhile, unlike Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Jacinda Ardern has been critical of the Trump administration’s move of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, stating it undermines the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

New Zealand’s relatively even-handed foreign policy has likely rattled the Zionists and their far right Islamophobic counterparts in the West and it is possible that it is viewed as a threat to the interests of Israel and the U.S. The feasibly manufactured terrorist attack against New Zealand has greatly disrupted the small country, a state which in 2018 had its lowest homicide rate in 40 years and averages well below 100 murders per year, making this attack an extremely rare occurrence for the peaceful country. In light of the attacks on the mosques in Christchurch, it could now end up acquiring the police state model of the U.S. and Israel as part of the global ‘War on Terror.’ The country immediately issued a ban on semiautomatic weapons following the tragedy in a disturbing rollback of civil liberties while engaging in an unprecedented censorship effort to criminalize sharing and possession of Tarrant’s manifesto and video. Prior to Breivik’s perpetration of the attacks in Norway, there had been significant political tensions between Oslo and Jerusalem in the months leading up to the violence due to Norway’s intent to recognize a Palestinian state and the circumstances in relations between New Zealand and Israel prior to Christchurch is eerily reminiscent.

Israel has a storied history of being a state sponsor of international terrorism as well as the use of ‘false flag’ operations to achieve its political objectives, most notably in the 1954 Lavon Affair, codenamed Operation Susannah, where the Aman branch of its military intelligence services recruited Egyptian nationals to commit bombings to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood in order to maintain desired British military presence in Egypt. It continues such cloak-and-dagger tactics to this day with the use of terror proxies such as the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK) and Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) to undermine Iran, as well as the arming and funding of al-Qaeda affiliated Syrian jihadist groups against the Assad government. If it is willing to co-sponsor radical Islamists with its ally Saudi Arabia to attack their mutual regional enemies, now that the ruling Likud Party has made strange bedfellows with far right Islamophobes in the West it is within the realm of possibility it would continue to do the same especially when the victims are Arab or Muslim.

Regardless of whether or not there turns out to be any Mossad fingerprints discovered on the Christchurch shootings, if the world is serious about confronting the emerging far right internationally it must be willing to accurately diagnose the phenomenon. One of its most distinctive attributes is its Christian Zionism and a shared belief that the Bible gives Israel evidential right to Palestinian land and that Jews are inherently non-indigenous to Europe . The ever-expanding colonization of the West Bank and Gaza has solidified Israel’s nationalist foundations, especially now that Arabic has been removed as a second official language and the passing of the 2018 Nationality Law defining Israel as an ethno-nationalist state with Arabs officially second-class citizens. If Israel did not directly participate in the 9/11 attacks by infiltrating the al-Qaeda cell in Hamburg, Germany and directing the airplane hijackings as many legitimately suspect, it has certainly facilitated the U.S. wars in the Middle East against its regional enemies and now it is nurturing the Islamophobic far right in the West hostile to the flood of displaced refugees fleeing them. Israeli policy has principally benefited from all this but one can only expect the hasbaric retaliation of ‘anti-Semitism’ smears like those against UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota for pointing this out. In the meantime, the Russiagate hoax has deflected attention away from Jerusalem toward Moscow in regards to foreign cultivation of the growing far right nationalist movement in the West. One hopes the recent bust of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report will put some of the distraction to rest and shift the speculation toward Israel where it belongs.

Finally, the political confusion of zealots like Tarrant needs to be addressed as entirely predictable instead of as unintended consequences of the War on Terror and the financial crisis. Recently, 2020 Democratic U.S. Presidential candidate Andrew Yang became the subject of establishment-led smears simply for acknowledging verifiable facts about declining birth-rates of white Americans where he was vilified as adjoining with the views of those like Tarrant. Yet these statistics designated by race that Yang recognized are expressions of the results of class conflict while genuine anger is being misdirected toward immigrants instead of capital and its never-ending changes in labor demands. This is the cycle which must be broken if this holy war between the West and Islam stirred up by Zionists or what the orientialist Samuel Huntington called the ‘clash of civilizations’ is to end. If not, we cannot only expect the U.S. empire to continue its downward slide and its fear of a multipolar world to culminate in an internecine that will turn the whole world into a tragedy like Christchurch.

About the Author

MAX PARRY, Contributing Editor • Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His writing is committed to an anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist perspective in the tradition of Michael Parenti. He is originally from San Diego, CA and resides in Brooklyn, NY. His work has appeared in the Greanville Post, InSerbia Today and The Global Politics. Max may be reached at maxrparry@live.com.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Comment here or on our Facebook Group page.

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

SPLC survey: Presidential campaign leading to widespread fear, bullying in schools

=By= Southern Poverty Law Center

Donald Trump by Mike Licht (CC BY 2.0)

[dropcap]A[/dropcap] survey of approximately 2,000 teachers by the Southern Poverty Law Center indicates that the presidential campaign is having a profoundly negative impact on schoolchildren across the country, according to a report released today.

The report – The Trump Effect: The Impact of the Presidential Campaign on Our Nation’s Schools – found that the campaign is producing an alarming level of fear and anxiety among children of color and inflaming racial and ethnic tensions in the classroom. Many students worry about being deported.

Teachers also reported an increase in the bullying, harassment and intimidation of students whose races, religions or nationalities have been the verbal targets of candidates.

“We’re deeply concerned about the level of fear among minority children who feel threatened by both the incendiary campaign rhetoric and the bullying they’re encountering in school,” said SPLC President Richard Cohen. “We’ve seen Donald Trump behave like a 12-year-old, and now we’re seeing 12-year-olds behave like Donald Trump.”

The online survey, conducted by the SPLC’s Teaching Tolerance project from March 23 to April 2, is not scientific. But it provides a rich source of information about the impact of this year’s election on the country’s classrooms. The data, including 5,000 comments from educators, shows a disturbing nationwide problem, one that is particularly acute in schools with high concentrations of minority children.

More than two-thirds of the teachers reported that students – mainly immigrants, children of immigrants and Muslims – have expressed concerns or fears about what might happen to them or their families after the election.
More than half have seen an increase in uncivil political discourse.
More than third have observed an increase in anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant sentiment.
More than 40 percent are hesitant to teach about the election.

While the survey did not identify candidates, more than 1,000 comments mentioned Donald Trump by name. In contrast, a total of fewer than 200 contained the names Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. More than 500 comments contained the words “fear,” “scared,” “afraid,” “anxious,” or “terrified” to describe the campaign’s impact on minority students.

“My students are terrified of Donald Trump,” wrote a teacher from a middle school with a large population of African-American Muslims. “They think that if he’s elected, all black people will get sent back to Africa.”

In state after state, teachers reported similar fears.

A K-3 teacher in Oregon said her black students are “concerned for their safety because of what they see on TV at Trump rallies.” In Tennessee, a kindergarten teacher said a Latino child – told by classmates that he will be deported and blocked from returning home by a wall – asks every day, “Is the wall here yet?”

A number of teachers reported that students are using the word “Trump” as a taunt or chant as they gang up on others. Muslim children are being called “terrorist,” or “ISIS,” or “bomber.” One teacher wrote that a fifth-grader told a Muslim student “that he was supporting Donald Trump because he was going to kill all of the Muslims if he became president!”

Educators, meanwhile, are perplexed and conflicted about what to do. They report being stymied by the need to remain nonpartisan but disturbed by the anxiety in their classrooms and the lessons that children may be absorbing from this campaign.

“Schools are finding that their anti-bullying work is being tested and, in many places, falling apart,” said Teaching Tolerance Director Maureen Costello, author of the report. “Most teachers seem to feel they need to make a choice between teaching about the election or protecting their kids. In elementary school, half have decided to avoid it. In middle and high schools, we’re seeing more who have decided, for the first time, not to be neutral.”

The long-term impact on children’s wellbeing, their behavior or their civic education is impossible to gauge. Some teachers report that their students are highly engaged and interested in the political process this year. Others worry that the election is making them “less trusting of government” or “hostile to opposing points of view,” or that children are “losing respect for the political process.”

The SPLC urged educators to not abandon their teaching about the election, to use instances of incivility as teaching moments, and to support children who are hurt, confused or frightened by what they’re hearing from the candidates.

Source: The Southern Poverty Law Center

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to
The Greanville Post–or

SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

A nation overrun by criminals, lunatics, and assholes. Even the Daily News can’t take it any longer.

=by= Iris Vander Pluym
perrystreetpalace.com

That god, tho.
SPOTTER: STEVEN JONAS

A longtime Loyal Reader™ sent us an image of yesterday’s New York Daily News cover, which we found quite interesting.

The Daily News, if you are blissfully unacquainted, is a New York metro-area tabloid that could perhaps best be described as the unholy offspring of the city’s two other daily rags, the execrable New York Times and Rupert Murdoch’s bird cage liner The New York Post. Its editorial slant is yawningly predictable and pro-status quo; its coverage of the pope’s recent visit, for example, fawning. In a word: conservative. That is why it is extraordinary to see this headline in giant screaming letters: “GOD ISN’T FIXING THIS.” The “this” refers to the latest shoot-’em-up that as of this writing has left 14 dead in San Bernardino.

I don’t know about you, but I read that as a scathing rebuke of some god or other (it’s not entirely clear to me which one). To add insult to injury, the cover features tweets from four prominent Republicans posturing about prayer—their single, inept and reflexive response to such tragedies—and highlights the fact that these very “cowards” are among the only few people on Earth in a position to actually do something about US gun violence. Then, as a final insult to Zeus (or whoever), prayers to the deity in question are openly derided by the Daily News as “meaningless platitudes.”

BOOM.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]his is fantastic news, obviously: I think it’s fair to surmise that the paper’s editors have been reading my blog and finally taking the importance of god mockery to heart, if I do say so myself.

The Planned Parenthood lunatic. Grade-A homegrown terrorist. And a conservative Christian, naturally. They don’t make assholes of this magnitude every day.

Anyway, speaking of shitty gods and shitty people, it will come as no shock to readers that the recent Planned Parenthood terrorist—who I will not name here because seriously, fuck him—is a conservative Christian, a violent, abusive, controlling, misogynist, rapist, stalker and wife batterer, with a looooong history of shitweaselry. It’s all good though, because his god totally forgives him for anything and everything he does, no matter how evil. One of his three ex-wives said in court papers, “He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases.” Christ, what an asshole. By which of course I mean the god Christ is a fucking asshole. This is the kind of shit he is only too happy to forgive:

Planned Parenthood shooter douche made advances to a mall employee who repeatedly rebuffed him—quite justifiably, as it turns out:

[He] reportedly began to harass the woman on and off the clock. He followed her to her home and on Nov. 29, 1992, he reportedly ambushed her as she attempted to take out the trash.

“The suspect then allegedly put a knife to the victim’s neck and forced her back inside her residence,” said a police report about the incident. “The suspect then allegedly forced the victim down into the couch, struck her in the mouth with his fist, and then sexually assaulted her.”

The assault continued with [the conservative Christian] dragging the woman into a bedroom and continuing to rape her there.

His second wife, to whom he was married at the time of the rape, described the Christ-forgiven rapist in divorce filings as “controlling, abusive and serially unfaithful.” She said he “routinely gambled away the family’s money [but] was ever reluctant to provide for his wife and children financially.”

Hot-tempered and unstable, he “erupts into fury in a matter of seconds,” said [the evangelical Christian’s] second wife Barbara Mescher to attorneys. In her time with [the devout follower], she testified, she continually “lived in fear and dread of his emotional and physical abuse.”

Also:

“[The white male] has a history of arrests in South Carolina out of Colleton and Beaufort counties, records show,” said the Post and Courier‘s Glenn Smith and Melissa Boughton. “A background search completed by The Post and Courier found that [the conservative man] was arrested in 2003 on a cruelty to animals charge but was found not guilty in 2004. He was charged under the state’s Peeping Tom law in 2002 but that charge, too, was later dismissed, according to a background search.”

A different ex-wife “called police in 1997 after a beating from [the forgiven Christian], but like the Charleston rape victim, she ultimately declined to press charges.”

Hey, if the god of the bible forgives him, why even bother to prosecute amirite?

Now okay, I admit it, here is where I get a little…confused. A timely report on a survey just issued by a Christian organization reveals that Jeezus followers have the most abortions, by far:

Surely this Jeezus can forgive them too, and presumably doesn’t need the likes of this asshole shooting at police and executing strangers on his behalf? Wow, theology is hard!

But if you take nothing else away from this little rant, take this: forgiveness is overrated. And so are gods.

The Palace hereby extends a royal welcome to all of its new readers at the New York Daily News editorial board! Watch and learn, editors. Watch and learn.

Have a nice day.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Iris Vander Pluym is an artist and activist in NYC (West Village), and an unapologetic, godless, feminist lefty. Raised to believe Nice Girls™ do not discuss politics, sex or religion, it turns out those are pretty much the only topics she ever wants to talk about.

First filed by Iris Vander Pluym | December 3, 2015 at 5:16 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p14ovc-3lB

We apologize for this inconvenience.

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to
The Greanville Post–or

SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

Did Obama just declare war on Syria?

Eric Draitser

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he news that President Obama has formally asked US Congress to authorize military force against ISIS is not surprising. What may come as a shock to Americans oblivious to these developments is that the administration has de facto declared war on Syria.

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama presented the US Congress with a draft resolution authorizing the use of military force.Liberal pundits have lauded the Obama administration for observing the Constitutional requirement for congressional approval of military action, while many conservatives have predictably pilloried the administration for presenting a “weak” and “flawed” strategy that will be doomed to failure. However both these lines of argument are, in fact, distractions from the far bigger, far more dangerous, and far more criminal action being taken by the White House: an aggressive war against Syria, a sovereign nation.

Distorting the reality of US aggression

While the corporate media is framing the request for authorization as being limited in scope, there are key clauses that should worry anyone interested in peace and stability in Syria, and the Middle East generally.Naturally, after a series of aggressive wars waged by the US (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.), many Americans are understandably skeptical of yet another open-ended conflict that will cost American lives, not to mention billions of dollars (note that the countless innocent civilians who will be killed as a result of US operations are almost never mentioned as they are not deemed noteworthy by policymakers or the media).

A careful examination of some key provisions of the president’s proposal reveals that, contrary to the rhetoric, this is in fact a declaration of war on Syria. The internationally, and legally, recognized government of Syria, led by Bashar al-Assad, has provided no such authorization, nor have they been consulted, let alone asked for consent, in the US decision. Therefore, any US military action occurring within Syria’s borders would unquestionably be a violation of international law.

According to the NY Times, Obama’s proposal “would prohibit the use of ‘enduring offensive ground forces’ and limit engagement to three years.” The understandable reaction from a casual reader would be that Obama is trying to avoid any kind of real war, and is instead just looking to engage in limited combat operations against a specific threat. However, that is simply not true for, were one to continue reading the NY Times article, one would find the following:

The resolution also requests authority to wage battle beyond the fight against the Islamic State to include “associated forces.” It would contain no geographic limitations… The omission of any language setting geographic boundaries appeared to anticipate the possibility of attacking the group should it gain a foothold in Lebanon or Jordan, which has fought off sporadic attacks from Islamic State fighters. It could also be used to address future threats from small bands of violent Islamist militants in Libya, Yemen and other Middle Eastern and North African countries that have “rebranded” their identities to take the Islamic State name, and benefit from its notoriety, American officials said.

So this resolution being touted as “limited” and “short-term” is anything but. Rather than cautiously authorizing very specific action, it instead provides Washington carte blanche to engage in a full-scale regional war that could include a number of countries in the region. The transnational character of the Islamic State virtually guarantees such an outcome. However, while Lebanon, Jordan, Libya, and Yemen are explicitly named in the Times article, the real target here is Syria – the only country that has actually been fighting (and winning) a war against IS.

In a recent interview with the BBC, Syrian President Assad responded to a question as to the possibility of his country cooperating with the United States by stating, “No, definitely we cannot and we don’t have the will and we don’t want, for one simple reason — because we cannot be in an alliance with countries which support terrorism.” A more clear rejection of US military action in Syria could not possibly be given.

And so, international observers are left with a central question: when the US inevitably violates Syrian sovereignty in this new phase of the war (they’ve been doing this for months already), will there be an outcry from those who still cling to the seemingly outdated notion of international law? Will there be any leaders who remind Washington and the world that there are clear and unmistakable precedents in international law which define this move as “aggressive”?

Who will stand up and defend the decision of the International Law Commission in 1951 which, after being tasked by the UN to develop a definition of aggression, ultimately decided that: “Aggression is the use of force by a State or Government against another State or Government, in any manner, whatever the weapons used and whether openly or otherwise, for any reason or for any purpose other than individual or collective self-defense or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a competent organ of the United Nations”?

Syria, a sovereign state currently at war against multiple external enemies that have infiltrated the country with the covert support of international actors, is now subject to invasion, bombardment, and other forms of aggression by the United States without ever having even threatened to attack the US, its allies, or its interests.

Naturally, the Obama administration would claim that IS beheadings and killings are ample justification for launching an aggressive war. However, no ethical observer or legal scholar would argue that these incidents, which pale in comparison to many other horrific crimes all over the world that the US has conveniently ignored, justify a war of aggression. For, as the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg unequivocally stated in 1946, “To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Taking this as the precedent, is there any doubt as to the illegality of what President Obama is proposing?

Questions for President Obama

Yet again the drumbeat of war becomes audible. Yet again Americans can rest assured that their elected officials and corporate media mouthpieces will do everything but ask incisive questions that challenge the militarist consensus that exists in Washington. And so, it falls upon those outside of the corporate mainstream to ask such questions, to challenge the false narrative, and to cut through the rhetoric and obfuscation of the bipartisan warmongers. And it is in this spirit of truth-telling, to say nothing of morality and justice, that I submit the following questions to President Obama:

1. Your proposed resolution explicitly prohibits “enduring offensive ground forces” being utilized in this so-called war against IS. Can you clearly and specifically explain what the word “enduring” actually means, and more to the point, how offensive ground forces differ from other ground forces? Put another way, what will stop you or your successor from simply waging offensive campaigns under the moniker of “defensive” campaigns? We’ve seen countless times before, both with President Bush and your administration, the shift in terminology that is in fact no change in actual tactics or policy. So, with that in mind, will you or your successor be guilty of violating this authorization by engaging in such deliberately misleading policies?

Obama asks Congress for permission to strike ISIS anywhere in world (RT.com)

2. This resolution grants you the authority to fight not only IS, but also so called “associated forces.” What or who exactly are the associated forces? Does this include the al-Qaeda affiliated al Nusra Front which has been documented as collaborating with Israel? Does this make Israel an “associated force” considering that they are in league with a known al-Qaeda group?

What about the so called “moderate rebels” which your administration has so ardently supported? Thousands upon thousands of these fighters have defected to IS, bringing their US weapons and training with them. Are you now suggesting that US military will be fighting against the forces that our own government has armed? Will anyone in the CIA or any other agency be held accountable for having provided the weapons and training that are now being employed by “the enemy”?

3. You’ve declared that a time limit of three years must be placed on US military operations against IS. However there seems to be no clear objective other than the abstract and intangible goal of “defeating ISIS.” Considering that the Islamic State is a transnational fighting force with a vast network of resources, allied factions, and regions under its control, how is it possible to defeat such a force without a full scale regional war far larger than the criminal war against Iraq by your predecessor? Isn’t it true that you’re simply waging yet another unwinnable war, to say nothing of it being an overtly criminal war?

Are you prepared to be morally and legally responsible for the costs of this war, both in lives and resources? And what happens when the three year time limit has expired and IS still exists, as this is undeniably going to be the result? Will you be prepared to have your war and your policy deemed a failure, just as Bush’s have been?

4. Considering the fact that this resolution will grant you the authority to wage war inside Syria without the consent of the Syrian government, are you prepared to wage war against Damascus if it defends its people from your bombs? As a legal scholar who has focused on international law, you’re undoubtedly aware of the inviolable right of self-defense as enumerated in Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter which states that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.” And so, the Syrian government will be well within its legal rights to defend with military force against US aggression, be it from ground forces, aerial bombardment, etc. What will you do in the event that this happens?Will you compound your grave breach of international law with yet another “supreme crime”?

5. You claim to be conscientious when it comes to international law, and yet you have already violated it countless times, long before the words “Islamic State” were on your lips. You refused to get a UN Security Council resolution authorizing war in Libya, and instead distorted the meaning of Resolution 1973 which authorized a No-Fly Zone over Libya, transforming it into a de facto declaration of war.Similarly, you’ve waged secret wars in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Mali and all over the world. Honestly, why should anyone trust you, or any of the “guarantees” and “limits” that will purportedly guide the military action?

Your administration has fomented the civil war in Ukraine, and its policies have brought the US and Russia into direct confrontation for the first time since the Cold War. Your war on Libya has created a failed state and hotbed for terrorism where there was none before.Your drone war in Pakistan has achieved nothing but needless civilian deaths and created endless fodder for new terrorist recruitment. Your secret drone war in Yemen has been a failure, and is one of the principal reasons for the fall of the puppet government that your administration put in place during your first term.Your policy in Somalia has achieved little more than more innocent Somalis being killed, to say nothing of the criminal policy that led directly to deaths of at least 250,000 Somalis from starvation.

Considering all of these wars that you are directly responsible for, how can the American people, let alone the people of Iraq, Syria, and the region broadly, trust anything you say? Considering all of the above wars, and the new regional war you have planned, how can you still claim to be a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize? Shouldn’t you consider returning it?

And finally, Mr. President…are you prepared to be remembered for having started yet another endless war? Are you prepared for the irreparable damage that this will cause to your own legacy? Are you prepared for the inevitable blowback of these policies? Moreover, will you take responsibility for it now, and in the future?

Mr. President, I await your response.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of StopImperialism.com.

What is $1 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?