LD : We publish below two different articles, slightly abridged, from the mainstream media on Donald Trump’s recent attack on Syria. The first article is written by Sir Christopher Meyer, former British ambassador to Washington, who happens to be Jewish. You won’t like this article and will question its factual accuracy and its glib assumptions. The second article you will like a bit more. This is written by Peter Hitchens, a non-Jew, and it presents a diametrically opposite viewpoint. Oddly enough, both articles come from the same edition of the same newspaper, The Mail on Sunday.
DONALD TRUMP, THE NEW JEWISH HERO
“Donald Trump should be congratulated for taking swift military action
in response to President Assad’s use of chemical weapons”
— (((Sir Christopher Meyer)))
Now prove you still have the art of the deal, Donald
By Sir Christopher Meyer
for The Mail on Sunday, April 9
Say what you like about Donald Trump’s rocky start as leader of the free world, but he should be congratulated for taking swift military action in response to President Assad’s use of chemical weapons.
By sending Tomahawk missiles to obliterate the al-Shayrat air base – from which Syrian air force jets launched their sickening Sarin gas attack last week – Trump succeeded at a stroke in doing what Barack Obama had so abjectly failed to do: enforce his own ill-advised ‘red line’ warning of 2012 over the use of chemical weapons.
To the astonishment of the world’s nations – and none more than Russia – Trump jettisoned the narrow, nationalist ‘America first’ rhetoric of his campaign and did what any US president, including Hillary Clinton, would have done – strike fast and hard against a regime that thinks it can commit war crimes and break international law with impunity.
LD: Unlike the law-abiding US of course, which never commits war crimes or breaks international law! The recent attack on Syria was itself a breach of international law, since the US attacked a sovereign country without permission of the UN Security Council. It also did this on the false pretext that Syria had used chemical weapons against its own people. The US had committed the same war crime in 2003, on a much larger scale, when it attacked Iraq on the false claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, a lie fed to the US by its dangerous Israeli ally.
This was one of the greatest foreign policy U-turns of all time from a president who once told the American people ‘we should stay the hell out of Syria’.
Trump’s strike against Assad for using Sarin was, I believe, entirely the right thing to do. No regime should be allowed to violate the Chemical Weapons Convention – to which Syria and Russia are signatories – without consequences. It is one of the pillars of international arms control.
But did Trump do the right thing for the wrong reasons? Did he hit Syria because he was emotionally carried away by the sight of choking babies? Or did he want to look a resolute and decisive Commander-in-Chief in contrast to what he considers Obama’s dithering?
Or was he trying to divert attention from the charge that he and his advisers are beholden to the Russians, an accusation that might yet force him from office and is being investigated by the intelligence agencies and Congressional committees?
Possibly it was a combination of all three. In short, the jury is still out on whether the Syrian raid was an impetuous flash-in-the-pan or the beginnings of a new Trump approach to world affairs.
LD : Sir Christopher Meyer, like the warmonger Jews in Washington, is not happy with the idea that the attack on Syria should be a one-off — ‘a flash-in-the pan’ to use his words. He would like to see a more belligerent Trump, ready to go on fighting Israel’s wars for it — “a new Trump approach to world affairs.”
Certain things are clear. Not only has Trump put Assad and President Putin on notice that further use of chemical weapons could invite similar massive retaliation. He has also seized back the strategic initiative in the Middle East from Russia.
We must not forget that to much preening and self-congratulation, Russia brokered a deal with Assad in 2013 to remove Syria’s chemical weapons. We were told all stocks had been removed. It was something of a diplomatic triumph for Putin, who was seen as the grand master of the geopolitical chess board.
But with authorship of that agreement came responsibility for its integrity and full implementation.
No wonder Moscow has been spitting with rage. It has either been played for a fool by Assad or been caught red-handed, colluding with him in his use of hidden stockpiles of Sarin. Putin’s Syria strategy is in utter ruins.
His reputation is tarnished, his prestige damaged. He has had to sit on the sidelines and watch the US Navy fire cruise missiles in a number and concentration of which he can only dream.
Russia’s humiliation only adds to the delicacy of the diplomatic task that now confronts Trump. However deserved a punitive strike it may be, it is no more than a short-term fix unless harnessed to a long-term political goal.
In Syria that goal is, as it has always been, a ceasefire followed by an internationally guaranteed peace agreement involving a transition of power in Damascus that removes Assad from the scene (after the latest Sarin attack there is no way the international community can accept him as the legitimate ruler of Syria).
LD : “A transition of power” = regime change. What Israel wants is a weak and divided Syria into which it can expand its territories, adding to its 1967 theft of the Golan Heights. A stronger Syria, after all, might lead to the restoration of the Golan Heights to Syria — something Israel refuses to contemplate.
And all this needs to be negotiated without detriment to the campaign against the Isis caliphate in Iraq and Syria.
What is new in this situation of almost incalculable complexity is that Trump now has far more leverage than Obama ever enjoyed or even wanted. We wait to see if he can use this in the interests of peace in Syria; whether an international statesman can emerge from the chrysalis of chaos that has beset his administration since his inauguration in January.
It is a tall order against a background of White House infighting, the shambolic collapse of healthcare legislation and the growing disenchantment with Trump inside the Republican Party, including the Senate and House of Representatives.
The faith of Trump’s true believers has been shaken by the Syrian intervention and by the dawning awareness that he favours tax cuts that will overwhelmingly favour the rich.
LD : What Meyer would obviously like to see is a “responsible” Trump administration in which Trump is prepared to become a proxy for Hillary Clinton: more foreign wars on behalf of Israel, more money for the rich, and a kick in the teeth for Trump’s alt.right white supporters. The more Trump betrays his baseline white supporters, the more pleased Meyer and American Jewry is going to be.
It is hard to see how international relations can be quarantined from this disorder. Much depends on the skills of the three ‘grown-ups’ who deal with abroad – Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defence Secretary James Mattis and National Security Adviser Lieut Gen HR McMaster – and whether Trump will let them get on with building a coherent foreign and security policy strategy – a Trump doctrine if you like.
LD : Note how not a word is breathed about Trump’s Svengali, his sinister son-in-law Jared Kushner — the man who is definitely being groomed right now to become America’s first Jewish president. Kissinger and Netanyahu give advice to Kushner, Kushner passes on his “concerns” to Ivanka, and Ivanka then tells her daddy what to do. The recent attack on Syria is said to be partly Ivanka’s doing. (See here)
— § —
Our ‘noble’ cause? Dropping bombs on behalf of Al Qaeda
By Peter Hitchens
for The Mail on Sunday, April 9, 2017
Now we have definitely moved from being a post-war world to being a pre-war world. Madness and folly are loose again.
Consider first that early on Friday morning the United States Navy launched 59 cruise missiles on behalf of Al Qaeda.
If this is not bad enough for you, note that the President of the United States did not even bother to pretend that he was seeking United Nations cover for what he did.
Note next that in the same week our Prime Minister, Theresa May, made a duty visit to pay homage to the medieval despots of Saudi Arabia, who kindly buy our warplanes and bombs, and are currently using them to savage effect in Yemen.
And President Trump was playing host at the White House to the head of Egypt’s military junta, General el-Sisi, whose security forces undoubtedly massacred at least 600 protesters (probably many more) in the streets of Cairo in August 2013.
And then mark that the pretext for this bizarre rocket attack was an unproven claim that President Assad of Syria had used poison gas. Yes, unproven. The brutality of Sisi and the Saudis is beyond doubt. They didn’t use gas, but our leaders’ outrage at Assad’s alleged gas attack looks a little contrived if they keep such company.
Also what happened to the rules of evidence? Many people have written, spoken – and now acted – as if the charge was proven. Why the hurry?
Now, Assad is is not insane. He knows that the use of poison gas is the one thing that will make the USA intervene against him. They have said so. He is currently winning his war against Islamist fanatics, with conventional weapons.
He had even finally got the USA to stop demanding his dismissal. Five days before the alleged attack – five days! – America’s UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, announced: ‘Our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out.’
The President of the United States did not even bother to pretend that he was seeking United Nations cover for what he did.
So why would he do such a thing, and throw away all his victories in a few minutes? It makes no sense of any kind.
As you ponder this, can I explain something about the place where the gas attack is said to have happened?
No independent Western journalist could go there. He or she would be killed or kidnapped within hours. Any report which comes from that region is filtered through people who you never see in the film that does get out. I have met men like them on my travels. I would not want to offend them. These are the Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, alias the Al-Nusra Front, alias Al Qaeda, the Syrian ‘opposition’ which we in the West have been supporting for several years.
We drop bombs on behalf of Al-Nusra/Al Qaeda. I’ve noted here before how these people have publicly kidnapped, killed and even sunk their teeth into the entrails of dead enemies.
But in this case, another small detail may make you wonder about what you are being told. In some reports of the alleged atrocity, a supposed ‘British doctor’, Shajul Islam, was quoted or shown on the spot, described as a ‘volunteer treating victims in hospital’.
Actually, he shouldn’t really be called a British doctor. He was struck off the British medical register for ‘misconduct’ in March 2016. The General Medical Council won’t say why.
And in 2012 Shajul Islam was charged with terror offences in a British court. He was accused of imprisoning John Cantlie, a British photographer, and a Dutchman, Jeroen Oerlemans.
Both men were held by a militant group in Syria and both were wounded when they tried to escape. Shajul Islam, it was alleged, was among their captors. Shajul Islam’s trial collapsed in 2013, when it was revealed that Mr Cantlie had been abducted once again, and could not give evidence.
Mr Oerlemans refused to give evidence for fear that it would further endanger Mr Cantlie. Mr Oerlemans has since been killed in Libya.
So the supposedly benevolent medical man at the scene of the alleged atrocity turns out to be a struck-off doctor who was once put on trial for kidnapping.
Does this change your view at all?
The once-wealthy and powerful West is falling to bits.
It is bankrupt and increasingly at the mercy of people who have begun to demand something in return for their trade and their loans.
It is all very sordid, and bodes ill for the future, but I would mind it less if we admitted what we were doing, rather than pretending these wretched events were some sort of noble act.