he Anti-Assad Syria “truth”, actually Syria half-truth, published the so called:
In dropping its Yediot Aharonot’s
” BOMBSHELL” that Assad ran secret negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the eve of the uprising in Syria, Syria half-truth, ignored that that nothing was secret.
Bashar al Assad, after his to France has called for a dialogue with the USA, being the key referee in ME peace negotiations.
Turkey brokered indirect peace talks with Israel but Syria suspended them during the zionist war on Gaza Strip in December 2008 and January 2009
On 17 February 2009, aftern his interview with Assad the Guardian’s Ian Black wrote:
It is America who is now considering resending an Ambassador to Damascus, and it was Jimmy Carter who came to Damascus, the doddering old fool, to pave the way for this, even deigning to give an interview to a local English language magazine.
“For the student of politics, these are lessons to be learned, for the ignorant, they simply shake their heads and wonder what on earth we are talking about, or they get smart and say that Syria is “back in from the cold”, which actually sounds ridiculous once recognise what really happened, and betrays a narrow and Westernised view of the world. What nobody can dispute at this moment in time is that Assad has played his cards right and that he is the king of this jungle and you will deal with him on his terms:
- “We are a player in the region. If you want to talk about peace, you can’t advance without Syria.”
- “you must deal with Syria on her terms”.
On 07 March 2009, about three weeks after the interview, Jeffrey Feltman said in Beirut on the eve his trip to discuss a “long list” of concerns Washington has with Syria, the key ally of US arch-foe Iran, on the first high-level US trip in four years.
“The president has said he wants to sustain in principle engagement with all states in the region and that includes Syria,”
“Our trip to Syria … is an opportunity for us to start addressing these concerns and using engagement as a tool to promote our objectives in the region,” Mr Feltman said.
|Bashar al-Assad (L) shakes hands with
William Burns (R) ahead of their meeting in
Damascus on February 17, 2010.
(Louais Beshara/AFP/Getty Images)
On 03 March 2010, one year laler, Syrian President Bashar Assad told former senior White House officials two weeks ago that U.S. policy in the Middle East has been wrong for the past decade and has created a vacuum that has been filled by other countries, meaning Iran and Turkey.
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, who served on the National Security Council during the Clinton and Bush administrations, said Tuesday on their Web site that Assad told them Iran’s rise has not come at Syria’s expense because all three countries have improved their regional strategic standing.
|Bashar al-Assad held security talks with
William Burns, a day after Obama
pledged to reappoint an ambassador to Syria
after a five-year absence.
Despite Assad’s criticism of U.S. policy choices, the Leveretts said the Syrian president seemed satisfied with his meeting the day before with Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns.
However, Assad made clear that Syria’s ties to Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas were “not on the table”.
“If Israel were prepared to conclude a peace treaty with Syria, meeting its longstanding requirements [full return of the occupied Golan Heights to the June 4, 1967 lines, etc.], [Assad said he] ‘could not say no’.” Leverett added
On 02/10/2010 President Bachar Assad and his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stressed on Saturday that Israel’s actions in the West Bank, Gaza and occupied Jerusalem proved the Zionist entity did not truly want peace.
Assad met with Ahmadinejad during a one-day visit to Iran on Saturday. He was greeted by a guard of honor before holding talks with Ahmadinejad behind closed doors to discuss bilateral and regional issues, including Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine, ISNA reported.
On Sunday 17 October 2010 the Gardianreported that Iran has brokered a critical deal between Iran and Syria and Iraq to move Iraq sharply away from a sphere of western influence.
On thursday 25 october 2010, Hassan Nasrallah, has made a rare public appearance in the Syrian capital, Damascus.
Sheikh Nasrallah attended a dinner with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
This dinner was a message to William Burns’s confirming what Guardian’s Ian Black wrote on 17 February 2009 about the ignorant the student of politics, in Washington who came to meet Assad believing that Syria is “back in from the cold”, and assad would bow. Assad the king of the jungle has played his cards right and the USA has to deal with him on his terms:
- “We are a player in the region. If you want to talk about peace, you can’t advance without Syria.”
- “you must deal with Syria on her terms”.
On 02 March 2011, the Anti-Assad, Lebanon’s Al-nahar claimed that “Hof Visited Syria over Syrian-Israeli Peace” and quoted Barak saying:
“Barak mentioned in a newspaper interview last month in which Syrian President Bashar Assad said the two sides were close to agreement in an agenda for direct talks.”
If the two sides were so close to agreement why the war on Syria?
Let us read Rehamat
2010: When Assad said NO to Netanyahu on Iran
Barack Obama’s special envoy to Lebanon and Syria, Frederick Hof, who resigned from his post earlier this week – in a confidential document leaked this week has claimed that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak conducted intensive secret talks with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad through him.
According to Frederick Hof, the negotiations were based on Netanyahu’s willingness to return to June 4, 1967 lines, giving Damascus full control of the Golan Heights which was occupied by the Jewish army during its 1967 invasion of its neighboring Arab lands
. What Netanyahu demanded in return was a comprehensive peace deal that would include an Israeli “expectation” for the severing ties between Damascus and Tehran. However, according to the US sources, the deal fell-apart as Bashar refused to severe his friendly ties with the Islamic Republic.
On Friday, Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth has claimed that Netanyahu resumed talks in secret with Bashar al-Assad to justify the stalemate in the negotiations with the Palestinians and because he viewed Syria as the weak link in the “Axis of Resistance”, which includes Iran, Lebanon and Hizbullah.
“The idea was to see if we could drive a wedge in the radical axis of Iran-Syria-Hezbollah by taking Syria out of the equation – after that to pursue peace with Lebanon,” says Frederick Hof.
Another Israeli Jew involved in the failed negotiations was Michael Herzog, former chief of staff to Israeli defense minister. He has also confirmed the Netanyahu-Assad negotiations. Michael Herzog is currently Israel-based fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a policy-arm of Israel Lobby (AIPAC).
Frederick Hof, an Israel-Firster, is a former US Marine official. He served Army attaché to the US embassy in Lebanon during the Mossad bombing of Marine barracks
in Beirut on October 23, 1983. He also worked under George Mitchell, Obama’s special envoy to Israel-Palestine. Hof has traveled to several world capitals to campaign against Assad-regime
. In testimony to Congress last December, Hof delivered some of the harshest rhetoric to date on the Assad regime.
“Our view is that this regime is the equivalent of dead man walking. Assad’s cruelty and isolation was turning Syria into “Pyongyang in the Levant,” he said.
According to the New York Times (October 12, 2012) – it’s not the first time the Israeli leaders tried to pull a deal with Assad. Former prime ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert and Netanyahu during his first term – all had conducted indirect secret negotiations with Assad through American and Turkish mediators in the past. Thus, the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power makes a good case for Israel and its western-puppet regimes.
During the 1980-88 western-sponsored Saddam Hussein war against the Islamic Republic, Syria was the only Arab country which did not join US-Iraq-Saudia alliance against Iran.
Israel-Russian journalist Israel Shamir had reported that Netanyahu told Putin that he preferred the “Somalisation of Syria, its break-up and elimination of its army”.
He also stressed that Israel has no problem with Moscow’s choice for Bashar’s successor – but he “must break with Iran”. Netanyahu gave the impression that Israel was in a position to “influence the rebels”.
Chandra Muzaffar Ph.D is President of the Malaysia-basedInternational Movement for a Just World (JUST).
In his August 21, 2012 post
, entitled ‘Custodian of the Custodian of the Custodian’,
Since this is Israel’s agenda for Syria, all the moves and manoeuvres of states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to eliminate Bashar would be very much in line with what Israel wants. Any wonder then that both Israeli leaders and its media welcomed the suspension of Syria from the OIC. In this regard, Israel would have been thrilled to read a pronouncement by Al-Qaradawi in May 2012, widely reported in the WANA media that
“If the Prophet Muhammad was alive today, he would lend his support to NATO.”
More than endorsement from within the region, what Israel has always been confident about is the patronage and protection of the US and most of Europe. On Syria, and in the ultimate analysis, on Iran, the Israeli political and military elites know that the centres of power in the West share its diabolical agenda. Indeed, it is Israel that determines the US’s position on critical issues pertaining to WANA. It is the tail that wags the dog.
Israel’s relationship with a major Arab state like Saudi Arabia, (with whom it has no formal diplomatic ties) on the one hand, and the US, on the other, tells us a great deal about who is in charge of who. The Kenyan- American scholar, Professor Ali Mazrui, once described the Saudi-US nexus this way: the problem with the custodian of the Holy Mosques is that there is a custodian of the custodian.
Which Assad do you believe?
The one who threatens war or the one who says he wants to make peace?
Contributors: (read it all or click on name to read post)
The question is not which Assad we should believe. The question is which Assad he chooses to be. So far, the Syrian regime has given all the wrong answers. It is providing help and safe harbor to Iraqi insurgents. It continues to arm and assist terrorist groups such as Hizbullah (directly or as a transit point for Iranian shipments). Its support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad threatens Israel’s security and undermines efforts to move toward a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It is seeking to destabilize the government of Fuad Seniora in Lebanon, perpetrating political assassinations and instigating acts of violence that could trigger another civil war. Its close ties to Iran add to the threat posed by that regime. Meanwhile, it has resisted any hint of political or economic reform, clinging to an archaic and repressive system of single-party rule. The US and its allies should directly present the Syrian regime with a clear choice: fundamentally alter its policies and enjoy the political and economic benefits of closer integration into the world community or face greater isolation and tougher sanctions.
The current administration has not done that. Instead, it has eschewed bilateral talks on the full range of issues, failed to present a convincing roadmap to a different kind of relationship, and issued empty threats. President Assad ultimately may feel that changing his policies would threaten his hold on power; he may calculate that the regime benefits from continued conflict with Israel; and he may believe that the alliance with Iran serves Syria’s interests. But these are propositions that must be tested and they cannot be tested by ignoring Syria and simply announcing that the Syrians know what they need to do.
Today, we have the worst of both worlds: talking tough without consequences, and not testing what might be possible.
I would engage Syria in direct bilateral talks. We should insist on our core demands:
cooperation in stabilizing Iraq; ending support for terrorist groups that threaten Israel; and respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence.
We should make plain there are two paths ahead:
greater engagement, improved political ties and economic cooperation or greater isolation through imposition of the full range of sanctions in the Syria Accountability Act which will make it difficult for companies and financial institutions that do business in Syria to continue to do business in the US.
In this process, we should work closely with our European partners; incentives and disincentives will be far more effective if the EU is on board. As for peace negotiations with Israel, this is a decision Israel must make based on its own interests and assessment of Syria’s intentions. The US should not pressure Israel to move, nor should it stand in the way. And should negotiations begin, the US should do what it has always done in close partnership with Israel:
lend them its full diplomatic and political support.
Far from seeking peace, the dictatorship in Damascus has aided and abetted the violence in Iraq. Syria’s Assad has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating from within its territory.
Furthermore, we should be deeply concerned by the ongoing subversion of Lebanese sovereignty by Syria and strongly support efforts to move forward on the investigation of the assassination of Lebanon’s former prime minister. The international community must also do more to hold Syria accountable for its past and current actions in Lebanon – including its support for Hizbullah which seeks Israel’s destruction. Lasting peace and security in Lebanon must include a democratic government that has a monopoly on authority within Lebanon’s borders.
That means no independent militias, no Hizbullah fighters, no weapons and equipment flowing to Hizbullah across Lebanon’s borders. So long as that is not the case, Hizbullah is likely to further regroup, reconstitute, and rearm. There is one bottom line: to achieve lasting peace, sooner or later, one way or another, Hizbullah must be disarmed and its patron in Damascus confronted. The US and the international community must face Syria from a position of strength and apply real pressure on the Assad regime to change its dangerous behavior in the region.
The Syrian regime led by President Bashar Assad is a repressive dictatorship that has attempted to destabilize the Lebanese government, supports terrorist groups including Hizbullah and Hamas and has played host to many of Israel’s sworn enemies.
Moreover there are reports that foreign fighters in Iraq have used Syria as a transit point. I supported exerting greater pressure on the Assad regime including co-sponsoring the Syria Accountability Act that passed Congress and placed additional sanctions on Syria.
In addition, I have long argued that diplomatic discussions with Syria can aid our efforts to assess and ameliorate their behavior, including such important interests as preventing the transit of foreign fighters into Iraq and the spread of sectarian violence.
The Assad regime has not been good for the Syrian people or for the Middle East. The regime continues to be involved in a concerted campaign to undermine the stability of Lebanon’s elected government and support Hizbullah’s aggression in Northern Israel. The recent assassination by car bomb of Walid Eido, the chairman of Lebanon’s parliamentary defense committee and a member of an anti-Syrian movement, was a terrible blow for Lebanon and for the region. Eido was the seventh prominent anti-Syrian figure to be assassinated in Lebanon since the beginning of 2005, when former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others were killed by another massive car bomb.
Intrusion by Syria into Lebanon’s internal affairs is bad for the Lebanese people, threatens the safety and security of Israel, endangers democracy, and must end. We must approach Bashar Assad’s motives with hard-eyed skepticism, but this does not mean we should abandon engagement or the hopes for diplomacy.
On the contrary, the difficult situation means we should reengage with tough diplomacy. The Administration has essentially severed all relations with Damascus. I believe this is a mistake. We must reengage Damascus today with tough diplomacy aimed at highlighting the costs repeating its illegal and destabilizing decisions of the past and at integrating the Assad government as much as possible into the mainstream community of nations. We must also work with the Syrians on Iraq, because they have a strong interest in helping find a regional political solution that will ultimately resolve the conflict there. I support the executive order signed by President Bush last week that would freeze the property and assets of any parties who attempt to undermine Lebanon’s democratically elected government. The executive order was a good step in the direction of using diplomacy and carrots and sticks to support stability and the rule of law throughout the Middle East.
There are plenty of reasons to mistrust Assad, but there could be real benefits to hard-headed diplomacy.
Syria is the common denominator of many problems – in Lebanon , the Palestinian territories, and to a lesser extent Iraq . They are Iran ‘s closest ally. But it is also a fundamentally weak and isolated regime. We should work to break up its marriage of convenience with Iran. If Syria could be encouraged to act less irresponsibly it could have a real impact in the region.