Skip to main content

Home/ Socialism and the End of the American Dream/ Group items tagged Peace

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Paul Merrell

Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly | The Whit... - 0 views

www.whitehouse.gov/...nited-nations-general-assembly

war & peace Obama-speech U.N. hypocrisy

shared by Paul Merrell on 24 Sep 14 - No Cached
  • Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly United Nations General Assembly Hall New York City, New York 10:13 A.M. EDT PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen:  We come together at a crossroads between war and peace; between disorder and integration; between fear and hope. Around the globe, there are signposts of progress.  The shadow of World War that existed at the founding of this institution has been lifted, and the prospect of war between major powers reduced.  The ranks of member states has more than tripled, and more people live under governments they elected. Hundreds of millions of human beings have been freed from the prison of poverty, with the proportion of those living in extreme poverty cut in half.  And the world economy continues to strengthen after the worst financial crisis of our lives. 
  • And yet there is a pervasive unease in our world -- a sense that the very forces that have brought us together have created new dangers and made it difficult for any single nation to insulate itself from global forces.  As we gather here, an outbreak of Ebola overwhelms public health systems in West Africa and threatens to move rapidly across borders.  Russian aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition.  The brutality of terrorists in Syria and Iraq forces us to look into the heart of darkness.
  • First, all of us -- big nations and small -- must meet our responsibility to observe and enforce international norms.  We are here because others realized that we gain more from cooperation than conquest. 
  • ...14 more annotations...
  • Recently, Russia’s actions in Ukraine challenge this post-war order.  Here are the facts.  After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt president fled.  Against the will of the government in Kyiv, Crimea was annexed.  Russia poured arms into eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands.  When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days.  When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border. This is a vision of the world in which might makes right -- a world in which one nation’s borders can be redrawn by another, and civilized people are not allowed to recover the remains of their loved ones because of the truth that might be revealed. America stands for something different.  We believe that right makes might -- that bigger nations should not be able to bully smaller ones, and that people should be able to choose their own future.
  • nd these are simple truths, but they must be defended. America and our allies will support the people of Ukraine as they develop their democracy and economy.  We will reinforce our NATO Allies and uphold our commitment to collective self-defense.  We will impose a cost on Russia for aggression, and we will counter falsehoods with the truth.  And we call upon others to join us on the right side of history -- for while small gains can be won at the barrel of a gun, they will ultimately be turned back if enough voices support the freedom of nations and peoples to make their own decisions. Moreover, a different path is available -- the path of diplomacy and peace, and the ideals this institution is designed to uphold.  The recent cease-fire agreement in Ukraine offers an opening to achieve those objectives.  If Russia takes that path -- a path that for stretches of the post-Cold War period resulted in prosperity for the Russian people -- then we will lift our sanctions and welcome Russia’s role in addressing common challenges.  After all, that’s what the United States and Russia have been able to do in past years -- from reducing our nuclear stockpiles to meeting our obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to cooperating to remove and destroy Syria’s declared chemical weapons.  And that’s the kind of cooperation we are prepared to pursue again -- if Russia changes course. 
  • This speaks to a central question of our global age -- whether we will solve our problems together, in a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect, or whether we descend into the destructive rivalries of the past.  When nations find common ground, not simply based on power, but on principle, then we can make enormous progress.  And I stand before you today committed to investing American strength to working with all nations to address the problems we face in the 21st century.
  • America is pursuing a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue, as part of our commitment to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and pursue the peace and security of a world without them.  And this can only take place if Iran seizes this historic opportunity.  My message to Iran’s leaders and people has been simple and consistent:  Do not let this opportunity pass.  We can reach a solution that meets your energy needs while assuring the world that your program is peaceful.  America is and will continue to be a Pacific power, promoting peace, stability, and the free flow of commerce among nations.  But we will insist that all nations abide by the rules of the road, and resolve their territorial disputes peacefully, consistent with international law. 
  • In other words, on issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule book written for a different century.  If we lift our eyes beyond our borders -- if we think globally and if we act cooperatively -- we can shape the course of this century, as our predecessors shaped the post-World War II age.  But as we look to the future, one issue risks a cycle of conflict that could derail so much progress, and that is the cancer of violent extremism that has ravaged so many parts of the Muslim world. Of course, terrorism is not new.  Speaking before this Assembly, President Kennedy put it well:  “Terror is not a new weapon,” he said.  “Throughout history it has been used by those who could not prevail, either by persuasion or example.”  In the 20th century, terror was used by all manner of groups who failed to come to power through public support.  But in this century, we have faced a more lethal and ideological brand of terrorists who have perverted one of the world’s great religions.  With access to technology that allows small groups to do great harm, they have embraced a nightmarish vision that would divide the world into adherents and infidels -- killing as many innocent civilians as possible, employing the most brutal methods to intimidate people within their communities.
  • I have made it clear that America will not base our entire foreign policy on reacting to terrorism.  Instead, we’ve waged a focused campaign against al Qaeda and its associated forces -- taking out their leaders, denying them the safe havens they rely on.  At the same time, we have reaffirmed again and again that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam.  Islam teaches peace.  Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice.  And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them, there is only us -- because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country. So we reject any suggestion of a clash of civilizations. Belief in permanent religious war is the misguided refuge of extremists who cannot build or create anything, and therefore peddle only fanaticism and hate.  And it is no exaggeration to say that humanity’s future depends on us uniting against those who would divide us along the fault lines of tribe or sect, race or religion.
  • But this is not simply a matter of words.  Collectively, we must take concrete steps to address the danger posed by religiously motivated fanatics, and the trends that fuel their recruitment.  Moreover, this campaign against extremism goes beyond a narrow security challenge.  For while we’ve degraded methodically core al Qaeda and supported a transition to a sovereign Afghan government, extremist ideology has shifted to other places -- particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, where a quarter of young people have no job, where food and water could grow scarce, where corruption is rampant and sectarian conflicts have become increasingly hard to contain.   As an international community, we must meet this challenge with a focus on four areas.  First, the terrorist group known as ISIL must be degraded and ultimately destroyed.
  • The second:  It is time for the world -- especially Muslim communities -- to explicitly, forcefully, and consistently reject the ideology of organizations like al Qaeda and ISIL.
  • Later today, the Security Council will adopt a resolution that underscores the responsibility of states to counter violent extremism.  But resolutions must be followed by tangible commitments, so we’re accountable when we fall short.  Next year, we should all be prepared to announce the concrete steps that we have taken to counter extremist ideologies in our own countries -- by getting intolerance out of schools, stopping radicalization before it spreads, and promoting institutions and programs that build new bridges of understanding.
  • Third, we must address the cycle of conflict -- especially sectarian conflict -- that creates the conditions that terrorists prey upon.
  • The good news is we also see signs that this tide could be reversed.  We have a new, inclusive government in Baghdad; a new Iraqi Prime Minister welcomed by his neighbors; Lebanese factions rejecting those who try to provoke war.  And these steps must be followed by a broader truce.  Nowhere is this more necessary than Syria.  Together with our partners, America is training and equipping the Syrian opposition to be a counterweight to the terrorists of ISIL and the brutality of the Assad regime.  But the only lasting solution to Syria’s civil war is political -- an inclusive political transition that responds to the legitimate aspirations of all Syrian citizens, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of creed.
  • My fourth and final point is a simple one:  The countries of the Arab and Muslim world must focus on the extraordinary potential of their people -- especially the youth.
  • We recognize as well that leadership will be necessary to address the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.  As bleak as the landscape appears, America will not give up on the pursuit of peace.  Understand, the situation in Iraq and Syria and Libya should cure anybody of the illusion that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the main source of problems in the region.  For far too long, that's been used as an excuse to distract people from problems at home.  The violence engulfing the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard work of peace.  And that's something worthy of reflection within Israel.
  • Because let’s be clear:  The status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable.  We cannot afford to turn away from this effort -- not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am President, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis, Palestinians, the region and the world will be more just and more safe with two states living side by side, in peace and security. So this is what America is prepared to do:  Taking action against immediate threats, while pursuing a world in which the need for such action is diminished.  The United States will never shy away from defending our interests, but we will also not shy away from the promise of this institution and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- the notion that peace is not merely the absence of war, but the presence of a better life. 
  • Paul Merrell on 24 Sep 14
     
    Epic hypocrisy. He bows to international law while waging multiple wars in direct defiance of it. And that's just in the first few paragraphs. It gets worse the farther he gets in his speech.
Paul Merrell

http://www.quakerpi.org/news/letter.htm - 0 views

www.quakerpi.org/letter.htm

war & peace uh-oh Israel war crimes christian leaders

shared by Paul Merrell on 19 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Amidst another week of deadly Israeli-Palestinian violence, fifteen faith leaders representing U.S. churches and faith organizations have called on Congress to condition U.S. military aid to Israel upon Israel’s “compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies.” These leaders--representing Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Orthodox, Quaker and other major Christian groups--agree that unconditional U.S. military assistance to Israel has contributed to “sustaining the conflict and undermining the long-term security interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.”  [SEE LETTER BELOW]   As a Quaker peace lobby that has advocated for Israeli-Palestinian peace for decades in Washington, the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) is proud to be a partner in this effort.   These organizations draw upon their decades of experience in the region, during which they have collectively witnessed the horror of suicide bombing, rocket attacks, shootings of civilians, home demolitions, forced displacement, and other widespread human rights violations. These faith groups “recognize that each party — Israeli and Palestinian — bears responsibilities for its actions and we therefore continue to stand against all violence regardless of its source.”      Unconditional U.S. military aid has become one of those sources fueling violence and further entrenchment of Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian territories. This statement highlights the United States’ responsibility to hold Israel accountable for “a troubling and consistent pattern of disregard by the government of Israel for U.S. policies that support a just and lasting peace.”
  • Dear Member of Congress,
  • Echoing urgent warnings from Israeli leader The letter also echoes the urgency for immediate action to secure a diplomatic settlement to the crisis that has been acknowledged by scores of Israeli and Palestinian leaders, including Ehud Barak, Israel’s current Defense Minister and former Prime Minister. In a historic speech delivered at the prestigious Herzliya National Security Conference in Israel in early 2010, Mr. Barak warned of Israel’s future in the absence of a political settlement, saying in stark terms:   “The reality is cruel but simple. Between the Jordan River...and the Mediterranean, 12 million people live, 7.5 million Israelis and 4.5 million Palestinians. And the simple truth is that as long as in this territory to the West of the Jordan River, there is one political entity which is called Israel[...]and if this bloc of Palestinians would not be able to vote, it’s going to be an apartheid state.”     Israeli, Palestinian, and U.S. interests require urgent efforts to avoid the nightmare that Israeli leader Ehud Barak has described as an apartheid state. A just and peaceful future for Israelis and Palestinians requires that all parties to a conflict are held accountable and that a comprehensive, inclusive diplomatic settlement be secured. An essential step for Congress to support Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts is to heed these warnings, and hold Israel accountable for how it uses U.S. military aid. (See full letter at:http://www.fcnl.org/middle_east
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Congress must investigate possible violations of U.S. law The latest State Department human rights report on Israel and the Occupied Territories provides a devastating account of Israel’s human rights violations against civilians, many of which involve the misuse of U.S.-supplied weapons. This diverse religious coalition has called for “an immediate investigation into possible violations by Israel of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act,” and urges Congress to “ensure that our aid is not supporting actions by the government of Israel that undermine prospects for peace”.     The signers affirm that these are laws that “should be enforced in all instances regardless of location,” but that it is especially critical for Israel to comply with laws that regulate the use of U.S. supplied weapons, since Israel is the single largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since World War II. Notably, the United States has initiated investigations of violations of these laws by other countries, and on four different occasions between 1978 and 1982, the Secretary of State notified Congress that Israel “may” have violated the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act.   The coalition has called for renewed investigations into human rights violations documented by the State Department’s report, including Israel’s escalation of home demolitions, forced displacement, suppression of dissent, and its use of prohibited weapons in densely populated areas during Israel’s military Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip.  
  • Unfortunately, unconditional U.S. military assistance to Israel has contributed to this deterioration, sustaining the conflict and undermining the long-term security interests of both Israelis and Palestinians. This is made clear in the most recent 2011 State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices covering Israel and the Occupied Territories (1), which details widespread Israeli human rights violations committed against Palestinian civilians, many of which involve the misuse of U.S.-supplied weapons. Accordingly, we urge an immediate investigation into possible violations by Israel of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act which respectively prohibit assistance to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of human rights violations and limit the use of U.S. weapons (2) to “internal security” or “legitimate self-defense.” (3) More broadly, we urge Congress to undertake careful scrutiny to ensure that our aid is not supporting actions by the government of Israel that undermine prospects for peace. We urge Congress to hold hearings to examine Israel’s compliance, and we request regular reporting on compliance and the withholding of military aid for non-compliance.
  • Sincerely, Rev. Gradye Parsons
Stated Clerk of the General Assembly
Presbyterian Church (USA) Mark S. Hanson
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Bishop Rosemarie Wenner
President, Council of Bishops
United Methodist Church Peg Birk
Transitional General Secretary
National Council of Churches USA   Shan Cretin
General Secretary
American Friends Service Committee J Ron Byler
Executive Director
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Alexander Patico
North American Secretary
Orthodox Peace Fellowship Diane Randall
Executive Secretary
Friends Committee on National Legislation Dr. A. Roy Medley
General Secretary
American Baptist Churches, U.S.A. Rev. Geoffrey A. Black
General Minister and President
United Church of Christ Rev. Dr. Sharon E. Watkins
General Minister and President
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Rev. Julia Brown Karimu
President, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Division of Overseas Ministries
Co-Executive, Global Ministries (UCC and Disciples) Rev. Dr. James A. Moos
Executive Minister, United Church of Christ, Wider Church Ministries
Co-Executive, Global Ministries (UCC and Disciples) Kathy McKneely
Acting Director
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns Eli S. McCarthy, PhD
Justice and Peace Director
Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM)
  • Paul Merrell on 19 Oct 12
     
    Maybe part of the solution is to stop propping up the apartheid state of Israel with U.S. weapons and war supplies?
Paul Merrell

Normandy Group sets Diplomacy Marathon Record for Peace in Ukraine | nsnbc international - 0 views

nsnbc.me/...-marathon-record-peace-ukraine

war & peace Ukraine cease-fire Russia Germany France

shared by Paul Merrell on 12 Feb 15 - No Cached
  • The participants of the peace talks on Ukraine within the framework of the Normandy Group in the Belarus capital Minsk set what must be considered a Marathon Diplomacy Record with talks lasting 17 hours and ending in a comprehensive agreement. The Russian, Ukrainian, French and German peace talks between Presidents Putin, Poroshenko, Hollande, and Chancellor Merkel began on February 11 and concluded on February 12, after a little more than 17 hours of talks with only one brief break for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko who had to consult with top-Ukrainian military brass.
  • Following the diplomacy Marathon for Peace the Normandy Group stated that a ceasefire agreement had been reached, to be implemented from 00:00 on February 15, local time. The agreement which reportedly includes some 80 different points also includes the withdrawal of all heavy military equipment as agreed in the Minsk Accords on September 5, 2014 and the line of contact that was designated on September 19, 2014. The withdrawal concerns all conflicting parties, including regular Ukrainian military units, the National Guard, as well as the defense forces of the Donetsk and Lughansk People’s Republics.
  • The agreement reportedly also stipulates that Ukrainian military and other pro-Kiev military units who are in the Debaltsevo kettle and according to the DPR and LPR encircled in a pocket without the possibility to be resupplied are granted free passage to withdraw.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • It is noteworthy that the Normandy Group, that is without the participation of the United Kingdom and the United States, is the only format that has introduced a pro-peace dynamics into the crisis. Top-French diplomats stressed that the situation in Europe was too critical to be led by the United States, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel categorically rejected the introduction of German weapons into the situation and criticized the United States for delivering weapons to Ukraine while it is in a deep crisis.
  • Paul Merrell on 12 Feb 15
     
    Watch for Ukraine to break the cease-fire as soon as prisoners are exchanged and Ukraine's surrounded troops are freed. The U.S. does not take kindly to peace efforts where it is attempting to drum up war and Poroshenko will do as the U.S. State Department neocons tell him.
Paul Merrell

Assad's opponents dismiss Russian ideas for solving Syria crisis | Reuters - 0 views

www.reuters.com/...position-idUSKCN0T01AI20151111

war & peace Syria Russia peace-proposal

shared by Paul Merrell on 11 Nov 15 - No Cached
  • Syrian opposition figures and Gulf commentators dismissed on Wednesday a Russian draft proposal for a process to solve the Syrian crisis, saying Moscow's aim was to keep President Bashar al-Assad in power and marginalize dissenting voices.A draft document obtained by Reuters on Tuesday showed Moscow would like Damascus and unspecified opposition groups to agree on launching a constitutional reform process of up to 18 months, followed by early presidential elections.Russia, which with Iran has been Assad's top ally during Syria's nearly five-year conflict, has denied any document is being prepared before a second round of international peace talks in Vienna this week.The text, obtained by Reuters, does not rule out Assad's participation in early presidential elections, something his enemies say is impossible if there is to be peace."The Syrian people have never accepted the dictatorship of Assad and they will not accept that it is reintroduced or reformulated in another way," said Monzer Akbik, member of the Western-backed Syrian National Coalition."The Russians are now trying to play the game they have been playing since Geneva," he told Reuters, referring to United Nations-led peace talks that collapsed in 2014.
  • Paul Merrell on 11 Nov 15
     
    "The text, obtained by Reuters, does not rule out Assad's participation in early presidential elections, something his enemies say is impossible if there is to be peace." Real reason: Assad would win re-election by a landslide, like he did the last time. That's why the U.S.-led opposition insists on Assad bowing out as a pre-condition to peace negotiations.
Paul Merrell

'We're going to have nothing to do with (peace process) any longer' -- Trump threatens ... - 0 views

mondoweiss.net/...process-threatens-palestinians

war & peace U.S.-foreign-policy Israel Palestine peace-talks Trump

shared by Paul Merrell on 26 Jan 18 - No Cached
  • Today at joint press appearance with Benjamin Netanyahu in Davos, Switzerland, Donald Trump bragged that the U.S. had taken “the toughest issue” — Jerusalem– “off the table” with his embassy announcement. “We don’t have to talk about it anymore.” But if the Palestinians don’t accept his Jerusalem announcement and don’t agree to negotiate peace with the Israelis, the U.S. was “going to have nothing to do with it any longer.” Trump issued that warning in the context of threatening to withdraw hundreds of millions of aid from Palestine unless its leaders negotiate. When they disrespected us a week ago by not allowing our great Vice President to see them — and we give them hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and support… That money is on the table, and that money is not going to them unless they sit down and negotiate peace. Because I can tell you that Israel does want to make peace. And they’re going to have to want to make peace too, or we’re going to have nothing to do with it any longer. The president also said that the U.S. will have a “small version” of the Embassy opened in Jerusalem ahead of schedule in 2019.
  • Paul Merrell on 26 Jan 18
     
    Actual policy or mere threat? The Palestinians seem serious about boycotting peace talks where the U.S. acts in the mediator role, in the wake of the illegal U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Gary Edwards

I Am a Peaceful AR-15 Assault Rifle Owner | Casey Research - 0 views

www.caseyresearch.com/...eful-ar-15-assault-rifle-owner

second-amendment Guns

shared by Gary Edwards on 04 May 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 04 May 13
     
    ""Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurances and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington I can't think of any reason I need to own my AR-15 assault[1] rifle. I don't pretend to need it for self defense. I also own several handguns. Any one of my handguns would be adequate to allow me an opportunity to defend myself, or another person, from virtually any act of aggression by another individual. Indeed, I could have easily halted any of the recent gun based rampages, by any of those deranged lunatics, with just one of my handguns. I wish I had been there. I have needlessly and peacefully owned my AR-15 for many years. I keep my AR-15 securely locked in a gun safe in the very same home where my young children live. My children are aware of my AR-15. Like many other things in life, I have taught my children about guns. Recently, some of my kids attended a private gun safety class given by a highly experienced gun expert. I enjoyed watching my kids learn about my AR-15. I admit being a bit nostalgic about my AR-15. I spent lots of time learning about every aspect of the AR-15 when I was in Marine Corps boot camp at Parris Island, South Carolina. I also carried an AR-15 when I served my country in Operation Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia. I had it with me when I lived in a dirt hole on the border of Kuwait. It is the weapon I know better than any other. I own lots of dangerous things I don't need. I don't need my highly modified 600+ hp Z06 Corvette, or my Harley Davidson motorcycle, or that crazy looking knife I sometimes jokingly say was imported directly from the Klingon Empire.[2] Al
Gary Edwards

Is The US Finally Ready For Revolution? - Democratic Underground - 1 views

www.democraticunderground.com/101970

ready-for-revolution

shared by Gary Edwards on 02 Jul 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 02 Jul 13
     
    Written in June of 2012, before the national elections, this commentary remains the ringing truth.  Maybe more Americans are ready to listen this fourth of July? ........................... "Is America Ready For Revolution? I have always strongly believed that it's not possible to be a good Christian without standing up against social injustice and government corruption in all its forms. As I take a look around me today I find a lot of things wrong with our country. In fact, I have been a proponent for radical change for several years now, and I have written and published 2 books on this very topic. Where shall I begin? In God-blessed America, the land of the free where everyone is an economic slave, our founding fathers' sacred idea of a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" has become but a cruel joke. Former president George W. Bush has notoriously called our Constitution - our supreme law of the land - "that (expletive) piece of paper". The federal government is currently spending at least $60 billion per month on military excursions in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and northern and western Africa - including operating between 800 and 1,000 foreign military bases all over the world. Our country's over-used flying drone aircraft kills hundreds daily overseas, many of whom are only innocent bystanders. Meanwhile here on the home front, one in seven people are on food stamps, and at any given time one in four American children are going hungry today. Our country spends more money incarcerating people than it does on education. What's up with that? Our political system is openly rigged against the best interests of the American people. A massive market mechanism is securely entrenched in our political system where political influence is openly bought and sold. Tens of thousands of highly-paid middlemen called "lobbyists" facilitate the legal transfer of billions between moneyed special interests and our so-called "representatives" i
Paul Merrell

Syria ready to discuss Russia peace plan talks, opposition dismissive | Reuters - 0 views

www.reuters.com/...is-talks-idUSKBN0K509V20141227

war & peace Syria Russia peace-talks

shared by Paul Merrell on 29 Dec 14 - No Cached
  • Syria said on Saturday it was willing to participate in "preliminary consultations" in Moscow aimed at restarting talks next year to end its civil war but the Western-backed opposition dismissed the initiative. Two rounds of peace talks this year in Geneva failed to halt the conflict which has killed 200,000 people during more than three years of violence and there was little sign of the latest move gaining traction.Syrian state television quoted a source at the foreign ministry saying: "Syria is ready to participate in preliminary consultations in Moscow in order to meet the aspirations of Syrians to find a way out of crisis."
  • But there are many obstacles to peace. The most powerful insurgent group, the hardline Islamic State, controls a third of Syria but has not been part of any initiative to end the fighting.Other rebel factions are not unified.The opposition is also suspicious of Russian-led plans as Moscow has long backed President Bashar al-Assad with weapons.Hadi al-Bahra, head of the Turkey-based opposition National Coalition, met with Arab League Chief Nabil Elaraby in Cairo on Saturday and told a news conference "there is no initiative as rumoured"."Russia does not have a clear initiative, and what is called for by Russia is just a meeting and dialogue in Moscow, with no specific paper or initiative," he was quoted by Egyptian state news agency MENA as saying.The opposition said after the failed "Geneva 2" talks in February that Damascus was not serious about peace.
  • Syrian state news agency SANA said on Saturday the Moscow talks should emphasise a continued fight against "terrorism", a term it uses for the armed opposition.Members of Assad's government say the opposition in exile is not representative of Syrians and instead says a small group of opposition figures who live in Damascus, and are less vocal against the president, should represent the opposition.Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said this month that he wanted Syrian opposition groups to agree among themselves on a common approach before setting up direct talks with the Damascus government.But Lavrov did not specify which opposition groups should take part.
  • Paul Merrell on 29 Dec 14
     
    It's no surprise that the figurehead U.S.-backed moderate Syrian opposition would reject the Russian peace overtures. But note carefully that Syria wants to negotiate with the true moderate opposition, not the U.S. puppet group. I can see Russia engineering an agreement that includes replacing President Assad with another elected leader in a power-sharing arrangement with the opposition. And with Assad on the way out, there's no more "evil dictator" for the U.S. to villify.  
Paul Merrell

Syrian Peace Will Be Decided on the Battlefield, Not in Vienna - nsnbc international | ... - 0 views

nsnbc.me/...-the-battlefield-not-in-vienna

war & peace Syria peace-talks

shared by Paul Merrell on 25 Jan 16 - No Cached
  • The much lauded “peace deal” regarding Syria upon even a cursory examination reveals nothing more than the reiteration of Western demands versus a reassertion of Syrian defiance.
  • The West seeks a “political transition” in addition to fighting the self-proclaimed “Islamic State,” implying that indeed, just as it had sought since 2011 and even beforehand, the West still expects current Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, and a client regime more to the West’s liking installed in his place. And while the West, as part of the “peace deal” claims to seek the end of the Islamic State, it makes no mention of the states sponsoring its existence, which coincidentally includes the West itself. Syria seeks the eradication of all armed groups, even those the West still attempts to claim are not linked to Al Qaeda. It has agreed to elections, confident the Syrian people will return President Assad to power again, just as they did in 2014. Knowing that President Assad would easily win any election held in the future, the West has been adamant about removing him from the process to even the odds in favor of candidates they back, thus undermining the very premise that the uprising had anything to do with “democracy” or heeding the will of the Syrian people in the first place.
  • The “peace deal,” despite optimistic headlines across the West about “unanimous agreement” among nations, is exposed as yet another attempt for the West to reassert its narrative regarding the Syrian conflict upon the global stage. In reality, the “peace deal” is no deal at all. What is left is the same battle that has been waged since 2011, and it is upon the battlefield that Syria’s fate will be truly decided.
Gary Edwards

I Am a Peaceful AR-15 Assault Rifle Owner by Marc J. Victor - 0 views

www.lewrockwell.com/...victor7.1.1.html

Libertarian Guns Culture-of-Violence

shared by Gary Edwards on 31 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurances and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." ~ George Washington
  • I am an American. As such, none of my rights depend on a showing of need. I am a free man who has the right to define and pursue my happiness in any peaceful way I see fit. The government does not grant me rights. I was born free. The legitimate role of government is to act as my agent to protect my rights; which exist independent of government. Americans do not beg the government for rights nor are they required to demonstrate a "need" for rights.
  • Government never has a more tempting opportunity to increase its size, power and scope, and to curtail the liberties of free people, than during or immediately after a crisis. Indeed, crisis is so tempting an opportunity for government that governments invent crisis whenever possible. This is why "emergency acts" and "wars" on anyone and anything are so popular for governments. Nothing entices people to stop thinking, act impulsively, and to relinquish liberties so easily as a "crisis" or a "tragedy" or an "emergency." We need to be smarter if liberty is to survive.
  • ...31 more annotations...
  • Banning Guns is Un-American and Immoral "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" ~ Samuel Adams
  • The Idea of Banning Guns is Foolishness "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Ben Franklin
  • The single biggest contributing factor to our culture of violence is that our society no longer adheres to the once basic notion that initiating force against non-aggressors is wrong
  • Although President Obama appears excited about the notion of banning guns, I have not heard him order a ban on the very guns used to protect him. Apparently, when it comes to his protection, President Obama prefers to be protected by people armed with guns. Indeed, I suspect none of these gun ban advocates would hesitate to call 911 and request help from people armed with guns if they were faced with an intruder in their homes in the middle of the night. I fail to understand why we can’t all agree that guns save lives.
  • Our Culture of Violence
  • "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" ~ Benjamin Franklin
  • Gun Regulations Never Reduce Gun Violence and Usually Increase Violent Crime "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … " ~ Thomas Jefferson
  • Our laws are replete with instances of legal trespass against peaceful people.
  • I prefer that my children are no longer unprotected sitting ducks at a federally mandated gun free zone in school.
  • We no longer recognize the sovereignty of the individual.
  • democracy is akin to mob rule.
  • Our spending on the drug war will soon be approaching 100 billion dollars per year.
  • Not only do guns remain widely available in Mexico, but their gun related homicide rate outpaces ours. The same can be said of all these drug war countries.
  • Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Its laws effectively prohibit gun ownership.
  • Rather than living in a democratic republic where most decisions are left to the property owner, we now have an unfettered democracy where anything goes so long as the majority of voters agree
  • "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." ~ Richard Henry Lee
  • Indeed, this law may have encouraged Mr. Lanza to work his horrific violence at the Sandy Hook Elementary School knowing federal law provides that nobody could have the capacity to stop him.
  • One unintended consequence of this federal law has been to create a guaranteed victim zone, comprised of children, who are unprotected sitting ducks for any deranged lunatic such as Mr. Lanza.
  • Our culture of violence is more directly attributable to anti-freedom government policies which diminish and disrespect the rights of the individual.
  • Here is a short list of some notable examples compiled by the Libertarian Party:
  • A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck. A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun. A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard. A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Virginia came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter. A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened. A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas was halted by two co-workers who carried concealed handguns. A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colorado was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun. At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Oregon the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.
  • Three Reasons Americans Have a Right to Own Guns "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" ~ Patrick Henry
  • First, free people have a right to self defense.
  • The second reason for a right to keep and bear arms is to deter possible foreign invasions.
  • The founders of our nation believed people must always preserve their right to resistance and revolution against their own government. "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~ Thomas Jefferson.
  • Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
  • The third reason for a right to keep and bear arms is, as Thomas Jefferson stated, "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
  • "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
  • "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"
  • In the 20th century alone, the death toll resulting from governments murdering their own disarmed citizens after guns were legally banned is estimated at 56 million.
  • "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." ~ Samuel Adams
  • Gary Edwards on 31 Dec 12
     
    Excellent article on the importance of gun ownership in America.  The author is a defense attorney practicing law in Arizona.  He's also a war veteran and well versed libertarian.   Excerpts: "I am an American. As such, none of my rights depend on a showing of need. I am a free man who has the right to define and pursue my happiness in any peaceful way I see fit. The government does not grant me rights. I was born free. The legitimate role of government is to act as my agent to protect my rights; which exist independent of government. Americans do not beg the government for rights nor are they required to demonstrate a "need" for rights." "Government never has a more tempting opportunity to increase its size, power and scope, and to curtail the liberties of free people, than during or immediately after a crisis. Indeed, crisis is so tempting an opportunity for government that governments invent crisis whenever possible. This is why "emergency acts" and "wars" on anyone and anything are so popular for governments. Nothing entices people to stop thinking, act impulsively, and to relinquish liberties so easily as a "crisis" or a "tragedy" or an "emergency." We need to be smarter if liberty is to survive." "Although President Obama appears excited about the notion of banning guns, I have not heard him order a ban on the very guns used to protect him. Apparently, when it comes to his protection, President Obama prefers to be protected by people armed with guns. "
  • Paul Merrell on 01 Jan 13
     
    Excellent article other than the fact that the author erred in referring to the AR-15 as an "assault rifle." It is not. It is an "assault weapon," a semi-automatic rifle with only a cosmetic resemblance to the M-16 fully automatic "assault rifle." "Assault rifles" have been outlawed in the U.S. for decades. The U.S. had a complete ban on "assault weapon" rifles from 1994 to 2004. It did not affect gun violence rates at all, because semi-automatic rifles that lacked the cosmetic resemblance to "assault rifles" remained on the market. The distinction between the two terms is critical to understanding the current gun debate. Those who propose a ban on "assault weapons" are offering only a cosmetic sop to the anti-gun crowd, banning a sub-set of semi-automatic rifles whilst leaving equally capable semi-autos on the market. The correct question to ask is "why bother?" One might as well ban toy guns that bear a resemblance to assault weapons; other toy guns remain unaffected. For a more in depth discussion of "assault weapon" vs. "assault rifle" with references see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
Paul Merrell

Israeli ex-officers issue peace plan, condemn government inaction - The Boston Globe - 0 views

www.bostonglobe.com/...story.html

shared by Paul Merrell on 31 May 16 - No Cached
  • JERUSALEM — A group of more than 200 retired Israeli military and intelligence officers criticized the government for a lack of action in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Friday and issued a detailed plan they say can end the impasse.The report’s publication closely follows a week of turmoil in Israeli politics that saw the appointment of a defense minister who is an outspoken skeptic of peace efforts with the Palestinians. Advertisement With peace talks in a deep freeze, the plan by Commanders for Israel’s Security on Friday called to ‘‘preserve conditions’’ for negotiations with the Palestinians. It urges a combination of political and security initiatives together with delivering economic benefits to Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem simultaneously.It calls for a freeze on settlement building, the acceptance in principle of the Arab Peace Initiative and the recognition that East Jerusalem should be part of a future Palestinian state ‘‘when established as part of a future agreement.’’ The Israeli opposition and much of the international community have long argued for these proposals.Commanders for Israel’s Security is a group comprising more than 200 retired generals and intelligence officers, veterans of decades of regional strife who are seeking to resolve the conflict. War veterans are well-respected in Israel, and their input has previously shifted debate.
  • The group’s chairman, Amnon Reshef, a fabled Israeli war hero and a former commander of its armored corps, said the plan ‘‘refutes the fear mongers’’ who claim there is currently no Palestinian peace partner or that conditions are not right for negotiations. He said such an argument, which is common in Israel after years of conflict and failed talks, ‘‘should not serve as an excuse for passivity and inaction.’’ Advertisement Reshef warned ‘‘the current status quo is an illusion’’ that endangers a two-state solution to the conflict.The report widens a growing rift between the government and the country’s military leaders. The former defense minister Moshe Yaalon was forced out after backing the military in a series of disagreements with political hard-liners. His ultranationalist successor, Avigdor Lieberman, is largely at odds with the military he now commands.
  • Reshef said his group’s plan aims to preserve conditions for future peace talks with the Palestinians while bettering Israel’s national security, regional and international ties in the interim. ‘‘In our experience we know that you cannot defeat terror only by military means, you have to improve the Palestinians quality of life,’’ he said.The group of military veterans said it hopes the plan will be considered by decision-makers and by the general public in Israel as well as in the United States.
  • Paul Merrell on 31 May 16
     
    We're years past the point where a two-state solution was possible, if it ever was. 
Paul Merrell

Netanyahu: Peace talks require at least another year | The Times of Israel - 0 views

www.timesofisrael.com/-require-at-least-another-year

war & peace Israel U.S. foreign policy Obama

shared by Paul Merrell on 12 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • etting to a peace agreement with the Palestinians would take at least another year of negotiations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in remarks aired Sunday, while promising that Jerusalem will not give up its “security and national needs” in any deal
  • Netanyahu said a framework deal being drafted by the Americans, which he recently said will only represent Washington’s positions, could offer “a possible path to advance the talks.” But a final status deal would still be a long way off. “It will take at least a year to see the talks through to their conclusion,” he said, adding that the Palestinians may reject the American framework plan.
  • A sign of the pressure Netanyahu is under to show his commitment to the talks came in a rebuke-filled interview US President Barack Obama gave to Bloomberg, in which he denounced continued settlement construction, warned that the US might no longer be able to protect Israel in the international arena, and predicted that “the window is closing for a peace deal.” According to the interviewer, columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama was prepared to tell Netanyahu at the White House meeting on Monday last week that if the Israeli prime minister failed to endorse the framework document for the peace talks, Israel “could face a bleak future — one of international isolation and demographic disaster.” Netanyahu downplayed the significance of the US president’s remarks. “I don’t get disappointed or insulted. If I did I wouldn’t be able to function, and I’m already serving my ninth year [as PM],” he said. He also pointed to distinctly more upbeat rhetoric from the US president during their White House meeting.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • “The things President Obama said at the beginning of our meeting in the White House, and then during the meeting, were remarkably different. So the question is what’s preferable: To have a critical interview and a positive meeting, or the other way around? I prefer the positive meeting,” he said. Asked if the politics of Israel’s ruling coalition, which includes parties vocally opposed to any deal that sees an Israeli withdrawal from any part of the West Bank, would be an obstacle to accepting the American framework proposal, Netanyahu rejected the idea. “I don’t think so. People understand that when entering the negotiations, Israel is holding to its positions. [The framework proposal] is a document, not a signed agreement, but will be an American document with American positions. The Americans are saying, ‘Look, this is a platform over which you can start to debate.’” The current nine-month round of talks agreed to by both sides is slated to end by late April. US Secretary of State John Kerry has called for the talks to continue after that deadline.
  • During the interview, Netanyahu refused to reject outright a new settlement construction freeze or unilateral withdrawal, though he noted these measures were unsuccessful in the past. Regarding the freeze, he noted “we’ve already done a freeze” in 2010. “Did it deliver anything? I don’t see the point. “I haven’t agreed or committed to pass a decision on a freeze,” he said. “I don’t think it serves a purpose.” Speaking to Channel 2 in remarks aired Friday, Netanyahu said Israel would have to give up some settlements in a future peace deal. “Of course some of the settlements won’t be part of the deal, everyone understands that,” Netanyahu said. “I will make sure that [number] is as limited as possible, if we get there.” He pledged that no Israeli would be “abandoned.” He also argued against – but refused to outright reject, despite prodding from interviewer Chico Menashe – a unilateral withdrawal similar to the 2005 Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip. “I prefer not to reach such possibilities, but to advance in negotiations. So far, unilateralism hasn’t proven itself. It didn’t create stability and security, but rather [brought about] Iran’s capture of every tract we left. We haven’t gotten anything good from this, only a lot of rockets.”
  • Paul Merrell on 12 Mar 14
     
    According to Bibi, Obama did not deliver the message he said he would the day before his meeting with Bibi. But with two liars involved in a secret conversation, who knows what was said?
Paul Merrell

Stand Firm, John Kerry - Zbigniew Brzezinski and Frank Carlucci and Lee Hamilton and Ca... - 0 views

www.politico.com/...rm-john-kerry-105483_full.html

war & peace Palestine Israel negotiations Brzezinski

shared by Paul Merrell on 11 Apr 14 - No Cached
  • By ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, FRANK CARLUCCI, LEE HAMILTON, CARLA A. HILLS, THOMAS PICKERING and HENRY SIEGMAN
  • e commend Secretary of State John Kerry’s extraordinary efforts to renew Israeli-Palestinian talks and negotiations for a framework for a peace accord, and the strong support his initiative has received from President Barack Obama. We believe these efforts, and the priority Kerry has assigned to them, have been fully justified. However, we also believe that the necessary confidentiality that Secretary Kerry imposed on the resumed negotiations should not preclude a far more forceful and public expression of certain fundamental U.S. positions: Settlements: U.S. disapproval of continued settlement enlargement in the Occupied Territories by Israel’s government as “illegitimate” and “unhelpful” does not begin to define the destructiveness of this activity. Nor does it dispel the impression that we have come to accept it despite our rhetorical objections. Halting the diplomatic process on a date certain until Israel complies with international law and previous agreements would help to stop this activity and clearly place the onus for the interruption where it belongs.
  • Palestinian incitement: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s charge that various Palestinian claims to all of historic Palestine constitute incitement that stands in the way of Israel’s acceptance of Palestinian statehood reflects a double standard. The Likud and many of Israel’s other political parties and their leaders make similar declarations about the legitimacy of Israel’s claims to all of Palestine, designating the West Bank “disputed” rather than occupied territory. Moreover, Israeli governments have acted on those claims by establishing Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and throughout the West Bank. Surely the “incitement” of Palestinian rhetoric hardly compares to the incitement of Israel’s actual confiscations of Palestinian territory. If the United States is not prepared to say so openly, there is little hope for the success of these talks, which depends far more on the strength of America’s political leverage and its determination to use it than on the good will of the parties.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • The Jewishness of the state of Israel: Israel is a Jewish state because its population is overwhelmingly Jewish, Jewish religious and historical holidays are its national holidays, and Hebrew is its national language. But Israeli demands that Palestinians recognize that Israel has been and remains the national homeland of the Jewish people is intended to require the Palestinians to affirm the legitimacy of Israel’s replacement of Palestine’s Arab population with its own. It also raises Arab fears of continuing differential treatment of Israel’s Arab citizens. Israelis are right to demand that Palestinians recognize the fact of the state of Israel and its legitimacy, which Palestinians in fact did in 1988 and again in 1993. They do not have the right to demand that Palestinians abandon their own national narrative, and the United States should not be party to such a demand. That said, Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, provided it grants full and equal rights to its non-Jewish citizens, would not negate the Palestinian national narrative.
  • Israeli security: The United States has allowed the impression that it supports a version of Israel’s security that entails Israeli control of all of Palestine’s borders and part of its territory, including the Jordan Valley. Many former heads of Israel’s top intelligence agencies, surely among the best informed in the country about the country’s security needs, have rejected this version of Israel’s security. Meir Dagan, a former head of the Mossad, dismissed it as “nothing more than manipulation.” Israel’s confiscation of what international law has clearly established as others’ territory diminishes its security. Illegal West Bank land grabs only add to the Palestinian and the larger Arab sense of injustice that Israel’s half-century-long occupation has already generated, and fuels a revanchismthat sooner or later will trigger renewed violence. No Palestinian leader could or would ever agree to a peace accord that entails turning over the Jordan Valley to Israeli control, either permanently or for an extended period of time, thus precluding a peace accord that would end Israel’s occupation. The marginal improvement in Israel’s security provided by these expansive Israeli demands can hardly justify the permanent subjugation and disenfranchisement of a people to which Israel refuses to grant citizenship in the Jewish state.
  • The terms for a peace accord advanced by Netanyahu’s government, whether regarding territory, borders, security, resources, refugees or the location of the Palestinian state’s capital, require compromises of Palestinian territory and sovereignty on the Palestinian side of the June 6, 1967, line. They do not reflect any Israeli compromises, much less the “painful compromises” Netanyahu promised in his May 2011 speech before a joint meeting of Congress. Every one of them is on the Palestinian side of that line. Although Palestinians have conceded fully half of the territory assigned to them in the U.N.’s Partition Plan of 1947, a move Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, has hailed as unprecedented, they are not demanding a single square foot of Israeli territory beyond the June 6, 1967, line. Netanyahu’s unrelenting efforts to establish equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian demands, insisting that the parties split the difference and that Israel be granted much of its expansive territorial agenda beyond the 78 percent of Palestine it already possesses, are politically and morally unacceptable. The United States should not be party to such efforts, not in Crimea nor in the Palestinian territories. We do not know what progress the parties made in the current talks prior to their latest interruption, this time over the issue of the release of Palestinian prisoners. We are nevertheless convinced that no matter how far apart the parties may still be, clarity on America’s part regarding the critical moral and political issues in dispute will have a far better chance of bringing the peace talks to a successful conclusion than continued ambiguity or silence.
  • The co-authors, senior advisers to the U.S./Middle East Project, are, respectively, former national security adviser, former U.S. secretary of defense; former chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; former U.S. trade representative; former under secretary of state for political affairs, and president, U.S./Middle East Project.
  • Paul Merrell on 11 Apr 14
     
    Brzezinski and other high former foreign relations officials publicly criticizing the Israeli position and calling for a hardened U.S. position that Israel must halt enlargement of settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank before negotiations will resume to "clearly place the onus for the interruption where it belongs," whew! Times are definitely changing. 
Paul Merrell

Reported US-Syrian Accord on Air Strikes | Consortiumnews - 1 views

consortiumnews.com/...s-syrian-accord-on-air-strikes

war & peace Syria ISIL U.S.-foreign-policy limited-truce

shared by Paul Merrell on 17 Sep 14 - No Cached
  • Exclusive: A problem with President Obama’s plan to expand the war against ISIS into Syria was always the risk that Syrian air defenses might fire on U.S. warplanes, but now a source says Syria’s President Assad has quietly agreed to permit strikes in some parts of Syria, reports Robert Parry.
  • The Obama administration, working through the Russian government, has secured an agreement from the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad to permit U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State targets in parts of Syria, according to a source briefed on the secret arrangements. The reported agreement would clear away one of the chief obstacles to President Barack Obama’s plan to authorize U.S. warplanes to cross into Syria to attack Islamic State forces – the concern that entering Syrian territory might prompt anti-aircraft fire from the Syrian government’s missile batteries.
  • In essence, that appears to be what is happening behind the scenes in Syria despite the hostility between the Obama administration and the Assad government. Obama has called for the removal of Assad but the two leaders find themselves on the same side in the fight against the Islamic State terrorists who have battled Assad’s forces while also attacking the U.S.-supported Iraqi government and beheading two American journalists.
  • ...13 more annotations...
  • The usual protocol for the U.S. military – when operating in territory without a government’s permission – is to destroy the air defenses prior to conducting airstrikes so as to protect American pilots and aircraft, as was done with Libya in 2011. However, in other cases, U.S. intelligence agencies have arranged for secret permission from governments for such attacks, creating a public ambiguity usually for the benefit of the foreign leaders while gaining the necessary U.S. military assurances.
  • Just last month, Obama himself termed the strategy of arming supposedly “moderate” Syrian rebels “a fantasy.” He told the New York Times’ Thomas L. Friedman: “This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.” Obama’s point would seem to apply at least as much to having the “moderate” rebels face down the ruthless Islamic State jihadists who engage in suicide bombings and slaughter their captives without mercy. But this “fantasy” of the “moderate” rebels has a big following in Congress and on the major U.S. op-ed pages, so Obama has included the $500 million in his war plan despite the risk it poses to Assad’s acquiescence to American air attacks.
  • In a national address last week, Obama vowed to order U.S. air attacks across Syria’s border without any coordination with the Syrian government, a proposition that Damascus denounced as a violation of its sovereignty. So, in this case, Syria’s behind-the-scenes acquiescence also might provide some politically useful ambiguity for Obama as well as Assad. Yet, this secret collaboration may go even further and include Syrian government assistance in the targeting of the U.S. attacks, according to the source who spoke on condition of anonymity. That is another feature of U.S. military protocol in conducting air strikes – to have some on-the-ground help in pinpointing the attacks. As part of its public pronouncements about the future Syrian attacks, the Obama administration sought $500 million to train “vetted” Syrian rebels to handle the targeting tasks inside Syria as well as to carry out military ground attacks. But that approach – while popular on Capitol Hill – could delay any U.S. airstrikes into Syria for months and could possibly negate Assad’s quiet acceptance of the U.S. attacks, since the U.S.-backed rebels share one key goal of the Islamic State, the overthrow of Assad’s relatively secular regime.
  • Without Assad’s consent, the U.S. airstrikes might require a much wider U.S. bombing campaign to first target Syrian government defenses, a development long sought by Official Washington’s influential neoconservatives who have kept “regime change” in Syria near the top of their international wish list. For the past several years, the Israeli government also has sought the overthrow of Assad, even at the risk of Islamic extremists gaining power. The Israeli thinking had been that Assad, as an ally of Iran, represented a greater threat to Israel because his government was at the center of the so-called Shiite crescent reaching from Tehran through Damascus to Beirut and southern Lebanon, the base for Hezbollah.
  • The thinking was that if Assad’s government could be pulled down, Iran and Hezbollah – two of Israel’s principal “enemies” – would be badly damaged. A year ago, then-Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren articulated this geopolitical position in an interview with the Jerusalem Post. “The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc,” Oren said. “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” He said this was the case even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda. More recently, however, with the al-Qaeda-connected Nusra Front having seized Syrian territory adjacent to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights – forcing the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers – the balance of Israeli interests may be tipping in favor of preferring Assad to having Islamic extremists possibly penetrating directly into Israeli territory.
  • In the longer term, by working together to create political solutions to various Mideast crises, the Obama-Putin cooperation threatened to destroy the neocons’ preferred strategy of escalating U.S. military involvement in the region. There was the prospect, too, that the U.S.-Russian tag team might strong-arm Israel into a peace agreement with the Palestinians. So, starting last September – almost immediately after Putin helped avert a U.S. air war against Syria – key neocons began taking aim at Ukraine as a potential sore point for Putin. A leading neocon, Carl Gershman, president of the U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, took to the op-ed pages of the neocon Washington Post to identify Ukraine as “the biggest prize” and explaining how its targeting could undermine Putin’s political standing inside Russia. “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents,” Gershman wrote. “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.” At the time, Gershman’s NED was funding scores of political and media projects inside Ukraine.
  • The Russian Hand Besides the tactical significance of U.S. intelligence agencies arranging Assad’s tacit acceptance of U.S. airstrikes over Syrian territory, the reported arrangement is also significant because of the role of Russian intelligence serving as the intermediary. That suggests that despite the U.S.-Russian estrangement over the Ukraine crisis, the cooperation between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin has not been extinguished; it has instead just gone further underground. Last year, this growing behind-the-scenes collaboration between Obama and Putin represented a potential tectonic geopolitical shift in the Middle East. In the short term, their teamwork produced agreements that averted a U.S. military strike against Syria last September (by getting Assad to surrender his chemical weapons arsenal) and struck a tentative deal with Iran to constrain but not eliminate its nuclear program.
  • Direct attacks on Israel would be a temptation to al-Nusra Front, which is competing for the allegiance of young jihadists with the Islamic State. While the Islamic State, known by the acronyms ISIS or ISIL, has captured the imaginations of many youthful extremists by declaring the creation of a “caliphate” with the goal of driving Western interests from the Middle East, al-Nusra could trump that appeal by actually going on the offensive against one of the jihadists’ principal targets, Israel. Yet, despite Israel’s apparent rethinking of its priorities, America’s neocons appear focused still on their long-held strategy of using violent “regime change” in the Middle East to eliminate governments that have been major supporters of Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, i.e. Syria and Iran. One reason why Obama may have opted for a secretive overture to the Assad regime, using intelligence channels with the Russians as the middlemen, is that otherwise the U.S. neocons and their “liberal interventionist” allies would have howled in protest.
  • By early 2014, American neocons and their “liberal interventionist” pals were conspiring “to midwife” a coup to overthrow Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych, according to a phrase used by U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in an intercepted phone conversation with Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who was busy handpicking leaders to replace Yanukovych. A neocon holdover from George W. Bush’s administration, Nuland had been a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and is married to prominent neocon Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for a New American Century which prepared the blueprint for the neocon strategy of “regime change” starting with the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
  • The U.S.-backed coup ousted Yanukovych on Feb. 22 and sparked a bloody civil war, leaving thousands dead, mostly ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. But the Gershman-Nuland strategy also drove a deep wedge between Obama and Putin, seeming to destroy the possibility that their peace-seeking collaboration would continue in the Middle East. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Neocons’ Ukraine-Syria-Iran Gambit.”] New Hope for ‘Regime Change’ The surprise success of Islamic State terrorists in striking deep inside Iraq during the summer revived neocon hopes that their “regime change” strategy in Syria might also be resurrected. By baiting Obama to react with military force not only in Iraq but across the border in Syria, neocons like Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham put the ouster of Assad back in play.
  • In a New York Times op-ed on Aug. 29, McCain and Graham used vague language about resolving the Syrian civil war, but clearly implied that Assad must go. They wrote that thwarting ISIS “requires an end to the [civil] conflict in Syria, and a political transition there, because the regime of President Bashar al-Assad will never be a reliable partner against ISIS; in fact, it has abetted the rise of ISIS, just as it facilitated the terrorism of ISIS’ predecessor, Al Qaeda in Iraq.” Though the McCain-Graham depiction of Assad’s relationship to ISIS and al-Qaeda was a distortion at best – in fact, Assad’s army has been the most effective force in pushing back against the Sunni terrorist groups that have come to dominate the Western-backed rebel movement – the op-ed’s underlying point is obvious: a necessary step in the U.S. military operation against ISIS must be “regime change” in Damascus.
  • That would get the neocons back on their original track of forcing “regime change” in countries seen as hostile to Israel. The first target was Iraq with Syria and Iran always meant to follow. The idea was to deprive Israel’s close-in enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial support. But the neocon vision got knocked off track when Bush’s Iraq War derailed and the American people balked at extending the conflict to Syria and Iran. Still, the neocons retained their vision even after Bush and Cheney departed. They also remained influential by holding onto key positions inside Official Washington – at think tanks, within major news outlets and even inside the Obama administration. They also built a crucial alliance with “liberal interventionists” who had Obama’s ear. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Dangerous Neocon-R2P Alliance.”]
  • The neocons’ new hope arrived with the public outrage over ISIS’s atrocities. Yet, while pushing to get this new war going, the neocons have downplayed their “regime change” agenda, getting Obama to agree only to extend his anti-ISIS bombing campaign from Iraq into Syria. But it was hard to envision expanding the war into Syria without ousting Assad. Now, however, if the source’s account is correct regarding Assad’s quiet assent to U.S. airstrikes, Obama may have devised a way around the need to bomb Assad’s military, an maneuver that might again frustrate the neocons’ beloved goal of “regime change.”
  • Paul Merrell on 17 Sep 14
     
    Robert Parry lands another major scoop. But beware of government officials who leak government plans because they do not invariably speak the truth.  I am particularly wary of this report because Obama's planned arming and training of the "moderate Syrian opposition" was such a patent lie. The "moderate Syrian opposition" disappeared over two years ago as peaceful protesters were replaced by Saudi, Qatari, Turkish, and American-backed Salafist mercenaries took their place. Up until this article, there has been every appearance that the U.S. was about to become ISIL's Air Force in Syria. In other words, there has been a steady gushing of lies from the White House on fundamental issues of war and peace. In that light, I do not plan to accept this article as truth before I see much more confirmation that ISIL rather than the Assad government is the American target in Syria. We have a serial liar in the White House.
Paul Merrell

G-8 leaders back Syrian peace talks but differ on Assad - latimes.com - 0 views

www.latimes.com/...talks-20130618,0,6397182.story

war & peace Syria negotiations G-8 Pipelinestan

shared by Paul Merrell on 19 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • President Obama, Russian President Vladimir Putin and other world leaders joined forces Tuesday in seeking a negotiated Syrian peace settlement that would forge a “united, inclusive and democratic” government -- but couldn't agree on whether this means President Bashar Assad must go. The declaration at the end of the two-day Group of 8 summit sought to narrow the diplomatic chasm between Assad's key backer, Russia, and Western leaders who together have been trying to start peace talks in Geneva to end a two-year civil war that has claimed more than 90,000 lives. The declaration said the country needs a new coalition government with “a top leadership that inspires public confidence.” It made no reference to the possibility of sending U.S., British or French weapons to rebels, an option being kept open by all three G-8 members. Russia refused to back any declaration that made Assad's ouster an explicit goal, arguing that it would be impossible to start peace talks with a predetermined outcome.
  • Reflecting growing unease at the behavior of some militants in the ranks of Syria's splintered opposition forces, the G-8 declaration said participants in any peace talks must agree to expel Al Qaeda-linked fighters from the country. The declaration condemned human rights abuses committed by government forces and rebels alike, and called on both sides to permit access by U.N.-led experts trying to investigate the contentious claims of chemical weapons use. In its only concrete commitment, the declaration commits an additional $1.5 billion in aid for Syrians driven from their homes by the conflict: 4.2 million of them within Syria and 1.6 million more taking refuge in neighboring countries. The G-8 noted that the new funds would cover only part of the United Nations' 2013 appeal for $5.2 billion in Syria-directed aid.
Paul Merrell

Blundering Tony Blair quits as Middle East peace envoy - only Israel will miss him - Co... - 0 views

www.independent.co.uk/...el-will-miss-him-10279906.html

war & peace Blair Israel Palestine

shared by Paul Merrell on 31 May 15 - No Cached
  • Tony Blair’s time as Middle East envoy representing the US, Russia, the UN and the EU has finally come to an end. Eight years after he took up the role, Blair tendered his resignation and left one question: how come a war criminal ever became a “peace envoy” in the first place? The people of the Middle East – and much of the world – have been asking this question ever since Blair was appointed the Quartet’s man in Jerusalem, solemnly and hopelessly tasked to bring “peace” between Israelis and Palestinians. Was his new mission supposed to wash the blood from his hands after the catastrophe of the Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq and the hundreds of thousands of innocents who died as a result?For Arabs – and for Britons who lost their loved ones in his shambolic war in Iraq – Blair’s appointment was an insult. The man who never said he was sorry for his political disaster simply turned up in Jerusalem four years later and, with a team which spent millions in accommodation and air fares, managed to accomplish absolutely nothing in the near-decade that followed.
  • Paul Merrell on 31 May 15
     
    No doubt his successor will be even worse. Appointing war criminals as peace envoys seems to make sense to some people. 
Paul Merrell

An Israeli takeover of the Palestine Authority…? - Alan Hart - 0 views

www.alanhart.net/ver-of-the-palestine-authority

war & peace Israel Palestine Egypt U.S.-foreign-policy Abbas Dahlan Palestinian-Authority

shared by Paul Merrell on 25 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • On the face of it that’s a silly question and the speculation it represents – that Palestinian “President” Abbas could replaced by an Israeli agent or asset – is not worthy of discussion. But before dismissing it readers might do what I did and consider two things. The first is that Mohammed Dahlan, formerly one of the most powerful Fatah leaders and almost certainly the one who administered for Israel the polonium that killed Arafat, is now putting a big effort into getting rid of Abbas by one means or another and replacing him with – guess who? – himself. In passing it is interesting to note that according to a recent report in the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv, Netanyahu’s special envoy, Yitzhak Molcho, is in a secret dialogue with Dahlan who spends his time shuttling between Cairo and the U.A.E. where he currently lives. One assumption has to be that Netanyahu is hoping that if Dahlan became “President” of the PA he would go much further than collaborator Abbas in delivering for Israel. (Also worth noting is that Dahlan speaks fluent Hebrew. He learned to do so during his 11 spells in Israeli jails between 1981 and 1986).
  • The second consideration is Israel’s track record in successfully placing its agents inside Arab institutions and organizations at very high levels.
  • My speculation (repeat speculation) is that if Mohammed Dahlan became the “President”, he would be prepared to use force as necessary to impose Israel’s terms for peace on the Palestinians. Dahlan demonstrated his enthusiasm for doing Israeli and American dirty work when, at the request of the Bush administration, he agreed to lead a military campaign to destroy Hamas after its election victory in 2006. The Bush administration provided Dahlan with money and arms and trained his Fatah fighters in a number of Arab countries. But it all went badly wrong for Dahlan and his sponsors. Hamas got wind of what Dahlan (fronting for the Bush administration and Israel) was intending and launched an Israeli-like pre-emptive strike. It destroyed Fatah’s security forces based in the Gaza Strip (which had been Dahlan’s base) and put Fatah politically out of business there. Commenting on what had happened in the Gaza Strip, Hani al-Hassan, for many years Arafat’s crisis manager and one of his two most trusted advisers, said it was “not a war between Fatah and Hamas but between Hamas and Fatah collaborators who served the Americans and the Israelis.”
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • The Ma’ariv article I mentioned above said that Dahlan has claimed that he and not Abbas can be counted on to bring peace, and that in 2010 he reportedly sent a letter to the Obama administration in which he said, “There is no choice but to replace Abbas with someone who can deliver results.” Because Dahlan must know that Israel’s leaders are not remotely interested in peace on terms the Palestinians could accept, I think it is reasonable to assume that the result he has in mind is peace imposed on Israel’s terms – effectively a Palestinian surrender to Zionism’s will. Is a Dahlan/Israeli takeover of the PA really possible? An indication that Abbas seems to think it cannot be ruled out was his request to President Obama that he press Israel to include Marwan Barghouti in the fourth and final batch of Palestinian prisoners due to be released at the end of this month. (Prisoner release was one of the inducements to secure Abbas’s green light for Secretary of State Kerry to launch his “peace process”. But today Netanyahu is under mounting pressure from the neo-fascist tendency to the right of him to say “No” to any further prisoner releases).
  • Subsequently the Bush administration exerted heavy pressure on Abbas (which he resisted) to appoint Dahlan as his deputy. And some Palestinian officials said that the U.S. and a number of European countries had made it clear that they would like Dahlan to succeed Abbas as head of the P.A. They presumably believed then, as Netanyahu might well do today, that Dahlan as “President” would use whatever means were necessary to compel the Palestinians to make peace on Israel’s terms. Shortly after his forces were expelled from the Gaza Strip, Dahlan re-established himself in the West Bank. And thereafter tensions between his Fatah supporters and opponents grew and grew. In June 2011 he was expelled from Fatah because of the assumption that he had delivered for Israel whatever it was that poisoned Arafat. Three months later Abbas ordered a raid on Dahlan’s house and the arrest of his private armed guards. Today in exile, and consulting with his allies in Sisi’s Egypt and some Arab Gulf states as well as Israel and America, Dahlan is plotting his comeback to replace Abbas by one means or another.
  • Barghouti is by far the most popular Palestinian leader and would easily win an election to replace Abbas as “President”. And that, of course, is precisely why Israel won’t release him. So if Abbas can be bullied and bribed by Israel and the U.S. into lifting the ban on Dahlan’s return from exile to the occupied West Bank, he, Dahlan, could be in with a chance. In my view a victory for him would be the final betrayal of the Palestinian cause.
Paul Merrell

Israel threatens to expel U.N. envoy over Qatar cash for GAZA - Al Arabiya News - 0 views

english.alarabiya.net/...over-Qatar-cash-for-GAZA-.html

war & peace Gaza Hamas Israel U.N.-envoy-expulsion

shared by Paul Merrell on 25 Jul 14 - No Cached
  • Israel's foreign minister has threatened to expel the U.N.'s special envoy for offering to help transfer Qatari funds to the Gaza Strip, Channel Two television reported. Avigdor Lieberman said Robert Serry, the world body's special envoy on the Middle East peace process, had first tried to convince the Palestinian Authority (PA) to transfer $20 million (14.7 million euros) from Qatar to resolve a pay crisis for Hamas employees in Gaza, the broadcaster reported Saturday. But after Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas refused to do so, the rightwing ultra-nationalist Lieberman charged, Serry proposed U.N. help in making the transfer.
  • Israel's foreign minister has threatened to expel the U.N.'s special envoy for offering to help transfer Qatari funds to the Gaza Strip, Channel Two television reported. Avigdor Lieberman said Robert Serry, the world body's special envoy on the Middle East peace process, had first tried to convince the Palestinian Authority (PA) to transfer $20 million (14.7 million euros) from Qatar to resolve a pay crisis for Hamas employees in Gaza, the broadcaster reported Saturday. But after Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas refused to do so, the rightwing ultra-nationalist Lieberman charged, Serry proposed U.N. help in making the transfer.
  • Serry rejected the allegations, saying in a statement that the Palestinian authority had approached him "informally" on the matter. "In considering any U.N. role on the issue of payments of salaries in Gaza that has potentially destabilising effects on security in Gaza, I made it clear that we would only be able to be of assistance if acceptable to all stakeholders, including Israel," he added. Israel had been kept informed of all the discussions, he insisted.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Lieberman told AFP he was seeking an "urgent meeting" on Sunday about the row in which Israeli television reported the foreign minister would propose that Serry be declared persona non grata in Israel. "We look upon Robert Serry's behaviour with the utmost seriousness, and strong measures will be imposed," Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told AFP. "The foreign ministry issues diplomatic visas and can also withdraw them," he added.
  • Paul Merrell on 25 Jul 14
     
    For many years, Israel has taxed Gaza residents, then paid the Gaza government the collected taxes. But Israel began reducing the payments then finally cut it off entirely. Doctors and medical staff in Gaza have had no pay for five months and had been on half-pay for eight months prior to that. Before the rockets began flying, medical supplies and equipment in Gaza were already severely depleted.  Qatar wants to send Gaza $20 million so the Gaza government employees can be paid. Now Israel threatens to expel the special U.N. envoy for the Mideast Peace Process because he offered to transfer the funds.  The Israeli hubris explodes in faux anger. Not a bright move because Gaza and the West Bank are classified as Occupied Territories Israel under the Fourth Geneva Convention. As the occupying power, Israel is required to maintain the elected Gaza government and is responsible for the well being of all Gaza residents. But Israel has been ignoring U.N. decisions including Security Council decisions from the moment the Israeli government was formed in 1948.   Making an enemy of the international human rights officials will prove doubly dumb when Israeli officials are inevitably seated in the dock of the International Criminal Court facing charges for war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. Human rights lawyers and judges pull no punches.   
Paul Merrell

BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Putin hopes for peace deal by Friday - 0 views

www.bbc.com/...world-europe-29042561

war & peace Ukraine Russia negotiations

shared by Paul Merrell on 04 Sep 14 - No Cached
  • Russia's president has said he is hoping for a peace deal between Ukraine and pro-Russian rebels by Friday. Vladimir Putin urged both sides to stop military action in eastern Ukraine, adding that his views and those of his Ukrainian counterpart were very close. Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko said they had agreed a "ceasefire process" but PM Arseny Yatsenyuk said no plan from Mr Putin should be trusted.
  • Insisting that Russia is in no way a negotiating party in the Ukrainian conflict, Vladimir Putin is nevertheless certain that it is Moscow's proposals that are going to advance both sides to peace. Mr Putin's plan is short and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Take, for example, a point on moving Ukrainian troops away from positions from which towns and cities can be shelled. Taken to an extreme, this could mean rewinding the situation on the ground to a point several weeks ago before Ukrainian advances. Just two weeks ago the discussions centred around when, and not if, the rebels would have to move out of Donetsk and Luhansk. But Moscow's plan will allow them to strengthen their control over the two regional centres and other areas.
  • Mr Putin has often seemed unwilling to negotiate from a position of weakness and the reversals of the past few days illustrate this perfectly. Now it's Petro Poroshenko who has to choose whether to accept something which clearly protects Kiev's enemies in eastern Ukraine.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Speaking to journalists in the Mongolia capital Ulan Bator, Mr Putin said the two sides should reach agreement when they resumed talks in Minsk on Friday. "Our views on the way to resolve the conflict, as it seemed to me, are very close," he said, referring to a phone conversation with Mr Poroshenko.
  • He said he was proposing a seven-point peace plan: The Ukrainian army and eastern rebels should stop "active offensive operations" Ukrainian troops must pull back to a distance where they would be unable to shell population centres International monitoring of the ceasefire No use of military jets against civilians "All-for-all" prisoner exchange without preconditions Humanitarian corridor for refugees and to deliver aid Restoration of destroyed infrastructure. In its statement (in Russian), the Kremlin said a phone conversation had taken place on Wednesday between the two presidents in which their points of view had "coincided significantly" on possible ways to end the crisis.
  • Mr Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, clarified for Russian news agency Ria-Novosti: "Putin and Poroshenko did not agree a ceasefire in Ukraine because Russia is not party to the conflict, they only discussed how to settle the conflict." Mr Poroshenko said he also hoped for a ceasefire. "The people of Ukraine want peace while some politicos want to play a game of war. I will not allow this to happen. We must pull together in fighting for peace," he said. But Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk rejected the proposal. "The real plan of Putin is to destroy Ukraine and to restore the Soviet Union," he said.
  • Pro-Russian rebels said they supported Mr Putin's proposals but that they did not trust Mr Poroshenko to observe a ceasefire. Meanwhile a Ukrainian official in Zaporizhzhya region, west of the combat zone, said the bodies of 87 soldiers and pro-government volunteers killed in a controversial incident near the town of Ilovaysk several days ago had been brought to a local morgue. The Ukrainian military says troops were fired on by rebels on Sunday after they had apparently been given safe passage out of an encirclement during rapid rebel advances. No-one has been able to confirm the circumstances of the killings or the total number of dead. More than 2,600 civilians and combatants have been killed and more than a million people have fled their homes since fighting erupted in eastern Ukraine in April, when pro-Russian separatists there declared independence.
Paul Merrell

Moscow behind possible peaceful Solution for Syria War | nsnbc international - 0 views

nsnbc.me/...eaceful-solution-for-syria-war

war & peace Syria Russia peace-talks

shared by Paul Merrell on 13 Apr 15 - No Cached
  • Recent talks with the Syrian government and opposition resulted in the first adoption of a joint agreement between the government and the opposition, prompting UN Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura to stress that the international community should pay more attention to Moscow’s efforts.  Speaking to the British The Independent, de Mistura said that it is time for the world to listen more closely to Russia with regard to Moscow’s effort to broker a peaceful resolution to the four-year-long conflict that has cost more than 210,000 lives and caused an unprecedented rise in Islamist terrorism.
  • De Mistura stressed the long-standing ties between Damascus and Moscow and added that Russia cannot manage to bring about a peaceful resolution without the help of others. Last week Moscow hosted talks between representatives of the Syrian government and the opposition, including the first direct talks. The head of the Syrian government’s delegation and Syrian UN Envoy Dr. Bashar al-Jaafari described the outcome of the talks as positive and confirmed the adoption of a joint document entitled “An Assessment of the Situation in Syria”. The talks were facilitated by Vitaly Naumkin who is the Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences.  Naumkin stressed that it was the first time that the two sides managed to unanimously adopt a document of political character, reports the Russian Tass news agency. The document reportedly contains provisions on resolving the Syrian crisis based on the principles of the June 30, 2012 Geneva Communique and the UN Security Council’s resolution on the fight against terrorism. It envisions the lifting of all restrictive economic measures against Syria and the international community’s assistance in repatriating refugees.
  • It also stipulates that the inter-Syrian dialog must be conducted without foreign interference, stressing that this would be the only way to resolve the crisis peacefully. Both the Syrian government, Syrian political parties and civil society organizations have repeatedly stressed that everybody who renounces violence and vouches for the territorial integrity of Syria is welcome to participate in Syria’s political discourse, constitutionally, and on equal terms with others. Last week the head of the foreign-based opposition, Qadri Jamil, said that the opposition would apply to the UN to arrange a Geneva III conference to continue the work toward a peaceful settlement. Both the “opposition” as well as the government and Syrian self-defense forces have increasingly been pressed by the advance of ISIS. Meanwhile, the United States is preparing its “train and equip” program in Turkey which will work towards launching more so-called “moderate rebels” into Syria. In 2014 some 5,000 of these “moderate rebels” would join the ranks of the Islamic State.
1 - 20 of 2924 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page