Edited by Anita Dixon
Obama, Who Put You in a Position To Attack Syria?
Published in Walla
(Israel) on 29 August 2013
by Mohammad Barakeh (link to original)
Americans, those who have been responsible for terrible war crimes throughout the world for dozens of years, are the last ones who should preach on morality when it comes to human rights. Knesset member Mohammad Barakeh calls for a solution to the crisis in Syria through negotiation.
The horrifying images coming from the suburbs of Damascus of human beings — and among them, babies — lying flat with no breath of life in their bodies after suffering injuries from chemical warfare are depressing and outrageous. The use of nonconventional weapons is unacceptable, and it is necessary to punish those who are responsible — whoever the criminals are and regardless of who the victims are. This issue is, in its essence, a moral issue; within the issue, however, are also political aspects. The question is: Where do they want to direct the outrage arising from these horrible images, and which side is interested in directing it in one direction or another?
The solution to which we should aspire, first, is the discovery of paths which lead to a cessation of the spilling of blood in Syria. To that end, we must prevent the addition of more outside involvement: in terms of regional players, for example, Turkey and the Gulf States on the one hand or Iran on the other; and, in terms of international players, the United States and NATO.
The fact that hurried Americans to threaten the use of force — even before the U.N.’s delegation finished examining the situation in Syria — essentially exposes the real intentions of the United States and the West: They are not seeking truth, and they are not interested in knowing what criminal used chemical weapons. Rather, they want to create a new version of “weapons of mass destruction” that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and, to this day, haven’t been found.
Instead of an Attack, the Second Geneva Convention
Throughout this entire saga, there is one thing that’s certain: The United States is the last side able to preach morals to anyone and to present an appearance of clean hands and concern for human rights. All the crimes attributed to the Syrian regime are utterly inconsequential when compared to the killing and destruction that has been committed by Americans, for dozens of years in dozens of countries around the world, in the name of some kind of “rose-colored future” they’re trying to sell.
We can ascribe to the Americans the greatest crimes committed on the face of the earth since World War II. It began with dropping nuclear bombs on Japan and continued in additional locations throughout East Asia: in the Korean Wars, in Vietnam, in bombing Laos and Cambodia. In all these cases, the United States carried out completely imperialist wars with no connection to America’s own security. This continued through dozens of other cases of involvement in revolutions and bloodbaths around the world, and especially in Latin America.
In recent years, the torch has been passed to the Middle East — especially to Afghanistan and Iraq. The first, under U.S. occupation, went from a backward country to rubble; in the second, approximately 1.5 million people have been killed since the United States’ invasion. NATO’s last experience with an attack on an Arab country was in Libya, where they began a series of bombings to bring down Qaddafi, and within two weeks, between 150 and 200,000 people had been killed and Libya had turned into a country with no central government in which a tempest of tribal wars raged. Let me be clear: Opposition to the U.S. does not place me on the side of Assad’s government, the Taliban or similar groups. But Americans are the last ones who should be preaching about human rights.
For this reason, I am saying two things. First, Americans, due to the magnitude of their past crimes, are not the right people to take care of crimes against humanity; most of the blood is on their own hands. Secondly, the Americans have absolutely no obligation to take upon themselves the role of “global policeman” or to fix the world.
So what should be done in Syria? First, outside players should stop stirring this terrible cauldron of blood. If the international community is talking about the “Second Geneva Convention” regarding the topic of Syria, that convention needs to lead one sole place — toward bringing all the parties currently living in Syria to the negotiation table — without gangs from al-Qaida or the al-Nusra front, without Saudi and Qatari money, without the “champion of human rights” from Ankara, Erdogan. Seated at the table should be only the components of the Syrian political map, and they need to deal with one thing: stopping the shedding of blood and establishing a schedule for democratic elections under the supervision of the U.N. and the international community. It is the responsibility of all the parties in Syria and the responsibility of the rest of the world to respect the decision of the Syrian people. These people have not given authority to Iran, they have not given it to Erdogan — and, of course, they have not given it to Obama.
The horrifying images coming from the suburbs of Damascus of human beings — and among them, babies — lying flat with no breath of life in their bodies after suffering injuries from chemical warfare are depressing and outrageous. The use of nonconventional weapons is unacceptable, and it is necessary to punish those who are responsible — whoever the criminals are and regardless of who the victims are. This issue is, in its essence, a moral issue; within the issue, however, are also political aspects. The question is: Where do they want to direct the outrage arising from these horrible images, and which side is interested in directing it in one direction or another?
The solution to which we should aspire, first, is the discovery of paths which lead to a cessation of the spilling of blood in Syria. To that end, we must prevent the addition of more outside involvement: in terms of regional players, for example, Turkey and the Gulf States on the one hand or Iran on the other; and, in terms of international players, the United States and NATO.
The fact that hurried Americans to threaten the use of force — even before the U.N.’s delegation finished examining the situation in Syria — essentially exposes the real intentions of the United States and the West: They are not seeking truth, and they are not interested in knowing what criminal used chemical weapons. Rather, they want to create a new version of “weapons of mass destruction” that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and, to this day, haven’t been found.
Instead of an Attack, the Second Geneva Convention
Throughout this entire saga, there is one thing that’s certain: The United States is the last side able to preach morals to anyone and to present an appearance of clean hands and concern for human rights. All the crimes attributed to the Syrian regime are utterly inconsequential when compared to the killing and destruction that has been committed by Americans, for dozens of years in dozens of countries around the world, in the name of some kind of “rose-colored future” they’re trying to sell.
We can ascribe to the Americans the greatest crimes committed on the face of the earth since World War II. It began with dropping nuclear bombs on Japan and continued in additional locations throughout East Asia: in the Korean Wars, in Vietnam, in bombing Laos and Cambodia. In all these cases, the United States carried out completely imperialist wars with no connection to America’s own security. This continued through dozens of other cases of involvement in revolutions and bloodbaths around the world, and especially in Latin America.
In recent years, the torch has been passed to the Middle East — especially to Afghanistan and Iraq. The first, under U.S. occupation, went from a backward country to rubble; in the second, approximately 1.5 million people have been killed since the United States’ invasion. NATO’s last experience with an attack on an Arab country was in Libya, where they began a series of bombings to bring down Qaddafi, and within two weeks, between 150 and 200,000 people had been killed and Libya had turned into a country with no central government in which a tempest of tribal wars raged. Let me be clear: Opposition to the U.S. does not place me on the side of Assad’s government, the Taliban or similar groups. But Americans are the last ones who should be preaching about human rights.
For this reason, I am saying two things. First, Americans, due to the magnitude of their past crimes, are not the right people to take care of crimes against humanity; most of the blood is on their own hands. Secondly, the Americans have absolutely no obligation to take upon themselves the role of “global policeman” or to fix the world.
So what should be done in Syria? First, outside players should stop stirring this terrible cauldron of blood. If the international community is talking about the “Second Geneva Convention” regarding the topic of Syria, that convention needs to lead one sole place — toward bringing all the parties currently living in Syria to the negotiation table — without gangs from al-Qaida or the al-Nusra front, without Saudi and Qatari money, without the “champion of human rights” from Ankara, Erdogan. Seated at the table should be only the components of the Syrian political map, and they need to deal with one thing: stopping the shedding of blood and establishing a schedule for democratic elections under the supervision of the U.N. and the international community. It is the responsibility of all the parties in Syria and the responsibility of the rest of the world to respect the decision of the Syrian people. These people have not given authority to Iran, they have not given it to Erdogan — and, of course, they have not given it to Obama.