The announcement last week by the United
States of the largest military aid
package in its history – to Israel – was
a win for both sides.
Israeli prime
minister Benjamin Netanyahu could boast
that his lobbying had boosted aid from
$3.1 billion a year to $3.8bn – a 22 per
cent increase – for a decade starting in
2019.
Mr Netanyahu has presented this as a
rebuff to those who accuse him of
jeopardising Israeli security interests
with his government’s repeated affronts
to the White House.
In the past weeks alone, defence
minister Avigdor Lieberman has compared
last year’s nuclear deal between
Washington and Iran with the 1938 Munich
pact, which bolstered Hitler; and Mr
Netanyahu has implied that US opposition
to settlement expansion is the same as
support for the “ethnic cleansing” of
Jews.
American president Barack Obama,
meanwhile, hopes to stifle his own
critics who insinuate that he is
anti-Israel. The deal should serve as a
fillip too for Hillary Clinton, the
Democratic party’s candidate to succeed
Mr Obama in November’s election.
In reality, however, the Obama
administration has quietly punished Mr
Netanyahu for his misbehaviour. Israeli
expectations of a $4.5bn-a-year deal
were whittled down after Mr Netanyahu
stalled negotiations last year as he
sought to recruit Congress to his battle
against the Iran deal.
In fact, Israel already receives
roughly $3.8bn – if Congress’s
assistance on developing missile defence
programmes is factored in. Notably,
Israel has been forced to promise not to
approach Congress for extra funds.
The deal takes into account neither
inflation nor the dollar’s depreciation
against the shekel.
A bigger blow still is the White
House’s demand to phase out a special
exemption that allowed Israel to spend
nearly 40 per cent of aid locally on
weapon and fuel purchases. Israel will
soon have to buy all its armaments from
the US, ending what amounted to a
subsidy to its own arms industry.
Nonetheless, Washington’s renewed
military largesse – in the face of
almost continual insults – inevitably
fuels claims that the Israeli tail is
wagging the US dog. Even The New York
Times has described the aid package as
“too big”.
Since the 1973 war, Israel has
received at least $100bn in military
aid, with more assistance hidden from
view. Back in the 1970s, Washington paid
half of Israel’s military budget. Today
it still foots a fifth of the bill,
despite Israel’s economic success.
But the US expects a return on its
massive investment. As the late Israeli
politician-general Ariel Sharon once
observed, Israel has been a US
“aircraft carrier” in the Middle East,
acting as the regional bully and
carrying out operations that benefit
Washington.
Almost no one blames the US for
Israeli attacks that wiped out Iraq’s
and Syria’s nuclear programmes. A
nuclear-armed Iraq or Syria would have
deterred later US-backed moves at regime
overthrow, as well as countering the
strategic advantage Israel derives from
its own nuclear arsenal.
In addition, Israel’s US-sponsored
military prowess is a triple boon to the
US weapons industry, the country’s most
powerful lobby. Public funds are
siphoned off to let Israel buy goodies
from American arms makers. That, in
turn, serves as a shop window for other
customers and spurs an endless and
lucrative game of catch-up in the rest
of the Middle East.
The first F-35 fighter jets to arrive
in Israel in December – their various
components produced in 46 US states –
will increase the clamour for the
cutting-edge warplane.
Israel is also a “front-line
laboratory”, as former Israeli army
negotiator Eival Gilady admitted at the
weekend, that develops and field-tests
new technology Washington can later use
itself.
The US is planning to buy back the
missile interception system Iron Dome –
which neutralises battlefield threats of
retaliation – it largely paid for.
Israel works closely too with the US in
developing cyberwarfare, such as the
Stuxnet worm that damaged Iran’s
civilian nuclear programme.
But the clearest message from
Israel’s new aid package is one
delivered to the Palestinians:
Washington sees no pressing strategic
interest in ending the occupation. It
stood up to Mr Netanyahu over the Iran
deal but will not risk a damaging clash
over Palestinian statehood.
Some believe that Mr Obama signed the
aid package to win the credibility
necessary to overcome his domestic
Israel lobby and pull a rabbit from the
hat: an initiative, unveiled shortly
before he leaves office, that corners Mr
Netanyahu into making peace.
Hopes have been raised by an expected
meeting at the United Nations in New
York on Wednesday. But their first talks
in 10 months are planned only to
demonstrate unity to confound critics of
the aid deal.
If Mr Obama really wanted to pressure
Mr Netanyahu, he would have used the aid
agreement as leverage. Now Mr Netanyahu
need not fear US financial retaliation,
even as he intensifies effective
annexation of the West Bank.
Mr Netanyahu has drawn the right
lesson from the aid deal – he can act
against the Palestinians with continuing
US impunity.
- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2016-09-19/palestinians-lose-in-us-military-aid-deal-with-israel/#sthash.fL4Eq28N.dpuf
President al-Assad: Moderate Opposition Is A
Myth
Video
and Transcript
October 07, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
-
Damascus, SANA – President Bashar al-Assad
affirmed that the United States doesn’t have
the will to reach any agreement about Syria,
and that Syria knew in advance that the US
agreement with Russia will not succeed
because the main part of that agreement is
to attack al-Nusra which is an American card
in Syria.
In
an interview given to Denmark’s TV 2
channel, President al-Assad said that
“moderate opposition” is a myth, and that
reaching a political solution requires
fighting terrorism, asserting that it’s not
acceptable that terrorists will take control
of any part of Syria.
Following is the full text of the interview:
Question 1: So, Mr. President, let us begin
with the current situation in Aleppo. The
last few weeks, terrifying pictures have
come out from Aleppo. I mean, we see the
residents of the rebel-held eastern part of
Aleppo in a very dire situation. They seem
exhausted, they seem terrified, the
situation is very violent. What is the
strategy behind launching such fierce attack
from the Syrian and Russian armies at the
moment?
President Assad: Actually, we didn’t launch
an attack, because the Syrian Army has
continued its drive toward liberating every
part of Syria including Aleppo or eastern
Aleppo from the terrorists, but there was a
ceasefire for one week in order to give the
treaty, or the agreement, let’s say, between
the Russians and the Americans a way to be
implemented, and it didn’t work. When that
week ended, we continued our drive as army
to liberate eastern Aleppo from the
terrorists. But actually, when you want to
talk about the dire situation in eastern
Aleppo, it’s not because of the government;
it’s because of the terrorists. They’ve been
in that area for years now, but we only
heard about that “dire situation” in the
media recently, in the Western media,
because the situation of the terrorists is
very bad. This is the only reason. While if
you want to talk about the situation there,
we never prevented any medical supply or
food supply or any other thing from entering
east Aleppo. There’s no embargo, if that’s
what you mean, there’s no embargo, and our
role as a government is to encircle the
terrorists in order to liberate every part
of the city.
Question 2: But what I also mean, we see
pictures of children being killed, children
at hospitals, we see pictures of demolished
hospitals. Who’s targeting those hospitals?
President Assad: Let me tell you something
about those pictures of children; of course,
in every war, there are victims, there are
innocent victims, and that’s why every war
is a bad war, but if you look at those
pictures that they’ve been promoted as
pictures in the Western media, they only
singled out a few pictures of children that
suit their political agenda, just to accuse
the Syrian government, while – you’ve been
here now for two days – and they’ve been
daily shelling from the eastern part of
Aleppo toward the rest of the city, and
there was wholesale killing and destruction
of the other part of the city and tens of
victims and tens of wounded people from
Aleppo that the Western corporations didn’t
talk about them. The Western officials
didn’t issue a single statement regarding
those children and women and elderly and
innocents in general. So, this is part of
the propaganda and demonization of the
government in Syria. That doesn’t mean when
you have war, again, that you don’t have
victims, but the Syrian government has
opened the door for the militants in the
eastern part of Aleppo to leave safely with
guarantees, and for the people of that area
to go back to their houses.
Question 3: But residents in the area,
eyewitnesses, international aid
organizations, all saying that the hospitals
have been targeted, and when I look at the
pictures, I see hospitals, I see the beds
inside the hospitals, and to me it really
looks like it is demolished, it has been
targeted, so who’s targeting the hospitals?
President Assad: I don’t have the answer to
which hospital are you talking about,
because we don’t have any facts about it, we
only have allegations, so answering
allegations shouldn’t be only through-
Question 4: But pictures are facts.
President Assad: Pictures cannot tell you
the story, even videos, everything could be
manipulated these days. I wouldn’t say that
there are no such attacks on any building,
but as a government, we don’t have a policy
to destroy hospitals or schools or any such
facility for a simple reason: first of all,
morally, the second reason is that if we do
so, we are offering the militants the
incubator, the social incubator that they’ve
been looking for, it’s going to be a gift,
something we wouldn’t do because it’s
against our interests. It’s like shooting
ourselves in the foot. If there’s such an
attack from the army, it could be by
mistake, but we don’t have any information
that thing has happened. All what we have is
allegations and only in the Western media,
not from Syria.
Question 5: So, if the Syrian Army didn’t
attack hospitals, or maybe they did by
mistake, you say, are you sure it’s not the
Russian air force who are targeting
hospitals?
President Assad: The question that you
should ask when you have a crime: who is the
beneficiary of that crime? What would they
get, I mean for the Russians or the Syrians,
if they attack a school or if they attack
hospital? What would they get if they attack
a hospital? Nothing, they wouldn’t get
anything. I mean, even if you want to talk
about the terrorists, most of their
hospitals for the militants would be in the
basement in ordinary buildings. So,
attacking a hospital intentionally by the
army is based on shaky logic, let’s say.
Question 6: Do you then agree that whoever
attacks hospitals, they are guilty of war
crimes?
President Assad: Of course, by international
law, it is. I mean, hospitals have immunity.
Any other facility for any inhabited area –
inhabited by civilians, not by militants –
has immunity, and any government shouldn’t
do it, of course, I agree with you.
Question 7: Mr. President, you have kids
yourself, and I’m sure you’re also watching
television, you also watch these pictures of
children at the hospitals, children being
buried in the rubble. How does it affect you
when you look at these pictures of Syrian
children?
President Assad: Of course, I have children,
I have the same feelings of any father and
mother who would care a lot about their
children, and how would they feel if they
lose a member of their family. And by the
way, we lost members of our families during
the conflict because of the terrorist
attacks. But when you look at those killed
children, you think why? Why the terrorists
did so? Why did Qatar and Saudi Arabia and
Turkey commit those crimes? And I wonder why
would the Western countries, mainly the USA
and its allies in Europe, have supported
those terrorists who’ve been committing
crimes in Syria? That’s the first thing I
thought about. Of course, as President, the
second thing that I would think about is how
can I protect the Syrian people and the
Syrian children, and how can I protect the
innocent from having the same fate in any
coming day.
Question 8: So, you are blaming the rebels
in the eastern part of Aleppo of being
behind the attacks on the children of
Aleppo?
President Assad: You can take your camera to
Aleppo, to the other part of Aleppo which is
under the control of the government, which
is – I mean, when you see the fact, it’s
more credible than what I’m going to say –
but you can see how many civilians have been
killed during the last two months in Aleppo.
Hundreds of civilians have been killed by
the rebels. The question is why didn’t we
hear about them in the Western media? That’s
my question. Again, I wouldn’t say that you
don’t having civilians going as victims, but
when it’s shelled by mortars by the rebels
intentionally, we have to talk about this
crime as well.
Question 9: At the moment, there’s a
seven-year-old girl, her name is Bana
al-Abed, from Aleppo. She’s Tweeting about
her life in the eastern part of Aleppo.
She’s talking about the massive bombardment.
She’s very scared, every time she wakes up
and realizes, fortunately, she’s still
alive. Do you trust her as an eyewitness?
President Assad: You cannot build your
political position or stand, let’s say,
according to a video promoted by the
terrorists or their supporters. It’s a game
now, a game of propaganda, it’s a game of
media. You can see anything, and you can be
sympathetic with every picture and every
video you see. But our mission as a
government is to deal with the reality. You
have terrorists in Syria, they are supported
by foreign powers and foreign countries, and
we have to defend our country. In some
areas, the terrorists use the civilians as a
human shield, but we have to do our job to
liberate them, we cannot say “we won’t do
anything because the terrorists are holding
those hostages.” It’s our mission. Again, we
are going to the same point; you always have
mistakes that are committed by anyone, but
this is not policy, and you always have
innocent victims of that war.
Question 10: What kind of mistakes did the
Syrian Army do?
President Assad: Any individual mistakes.
Question 11: Have you any examples of
mistakes?
President Assad: I mean, you have
institutions, I mean anyone could be
punished if he commits a mistake, that would
happen in any war, in every army, this is
common sense.
Question 12: You have encouraged the
civilians in the eastern part of Aleppo, and
also actually the rebels, to leave the
place. You wanted to create a humanitarian
corridor. Can you guarantee the safety of
those civilians and the rebels if they leave
the rebel-held part of the city?
President Assad: Exactly, that’s what we
announced a few days ago, and we announced
it two months ago, because we wanted the
civilians to leave away from the terrorists.
Yeah.
Question 13: And how are you going to
protect them?
President Assad: They are allowed to leave.
It happened many times, in many different
areas in Syria. We allowed the terrorists to
leave that area in order to protect the
civilians. We don’t need any more
blood-letting and blood-shedding. This is
one of the ways or the methods we’ve been
using in order to protect the civilians. Of
course, if they don’t obey, we tell the
civilians that we’re going to attack that
area, so they can move away from it. But the
best way is to allow the terrorists to
leave, and the civilians will be safe, then
you can if you want to follow or chase the
terrorists, you can chase them somewhere
else where there’s no civilians.
Question 14: Do you understand if people
around the world who are watching these
terrifying pictures coming out of the
eastern part of Aleppo, if they maybe think
that you are denying facts? That you also
have some kind of responsibility for the
victims, for the bombing of the hospitals,
for the bombing of the civilian
infrastructure? Do you understand that some
people, they may think you are denying
facts?
President Assad: Look, if we’ve been faced
by lies since the beginning of the war on
Syria, accepting those lies as reality
doesn’t make me credible. I wouldn’t be
credible if I say “oh, yeah, you’re right.”
That’s why I said there’s a difference
between accepting that this is a policy, or
accepting that they always have mistakes. I
didn’t deny any mistake to be committed by
any individual. I said there’s always
mistakes. There are always mistakes
committed in any war. So, I’m very
realistic. But to say that this is our aim
as a government, we give the order to
destroy hospitals or schools or to kill
civilians, this is against our interests. I
mean, if you want to put the morals aside,
we wouldn’t do it because this is against
us, so how can those people, that would say
that we are only denying facts, convince
anyone that we are working against our
interests?
This is first. Second, if we are killing
people, Syrian people, and destroying
hospitals and committing all these
atrocities, and we’ve been faced by all the
great powers and the petrodollars in the
world, how can I be President after nearly
six years of the beginning of the war? I’m
not Superman, if I don’t have support, I
wouldn’t be here, and because I have the
support, and because we defend the Syrian
people, we have the support as President or
as a government. This is how to refute all
these claims. I mean, at the end, the
reality is telling.
Question 15: So, there’s a fierce battle
going on in Aleppo right now. What will be
the Syrian army and the Russian army’s next
move to retake the eastern rebel-held part
of Aleppo?
President Assad: To continue the fight with
the rebels till they leave Aleppo. They have
to. There’s no other option. We won’t accept
that terrorists will take control of any
part of Syria, not only Aleppo. This is our
mission, and this is our goal, and this is
our next step.
Question 16: So, this intense way of warfare
that we see right will continue, that’s what
you’re saying?
President Assad: No, if you have any other
option like the reconciliations in other
areas, that’s the best option, not the war,
and that’s why we announced – we gave many
amnesties to hundreds, and maybe thousands,
not hundreds, thousands of militants, in
order to save blood, and it worked. That’s
why we said we give them guarantee, whether
they want to have reconciliation and to have
the amnesty, or to leave with their
armaments outside the city of Aleppo
completely, to leave the city safe, and for
the people to go back to their normal life.
Question 17: The United States, they stopped
all bilateral talks with Russia about any
kind of peace agreement, and the Russians
they said that they actually regret this. Do
you regret it as well?
President Assad: We regret it, but we knew
in advance that it wouldn’t work, because
the agreement, it’s not only about the talks
between the two great powers, it’s not about
what they’re going to sign or agree upon;
it’s about the will, and we already knew, we
had already known that the Americans didn’t
have the will to reach any agreement,
because the main part of that agreement is
to attack al-Nusra which is, according to
the American list and to the United Nations
list, is a terrorist group, but in the
Syrian conflict, it’s an American card.
Without al-Nusra, the Americans cannot have
any real, let’s say, concrete and effective
card in the Syrian arena. That’s why we
regret it, but we already knew that it
wouldn’t happen.
Question 18: But isn’t it very difficult for
the United States to separate the so-called
“moderate rebels” and some of the more
radical ones? This is very difficult, when
you are attacking the moderate rebels all
the time.
President Assad: You are right, do you know
why you are right? Do you know the unicorn,
the animal that’s like a horse, has a long
horn? It’s a myth. And the moderate
opposition is a myth. That’s why you cannot
separate something that doesn’t exist from
something that exists. All of them have the
same grassroots, the same grassroots that
used to be called “free Syrian army” four
years ago, five years ago, then it became
al-Nusra, then it became ISIS. So, the same
grassroots move from group to another group.
That’s why they cannot separate it. And they
don’t want.. if this is reality, not a myth,
they don’t want, but they cannot, because it
doesn’t exist.
Question 19: But why did you ask them to do
it if it’s not possible?
President Assad: Because they insisted that
there is a moderate opposition, and the
Russian told them “ok, if there is a
moderate opposition, please separate those
moderates from the extremists,” and it
didn’t work, because they don’t exist,
that’s why.
Question 20: What do you think will be the
consequences of the US suspension of the
bilateral talks? I mean, until now, the
Syrian and Russian armies, they have avoided
direct clashes with the US army. Do you
think that there’s an increased risk of
direct attacks between you and your allies
and the US army?
President Assad: Many people are talking
about the escalation, if the agreement
didn’t work or if it’s not implemented. But
actually that escalation has been happening
for a while now. I mean, before that
agreement, let’s say, failed, the Americans
attacked our forces in Deir Ezzor, and
everybody knows that only one group existed
in Deir Ezzor, which is ISIS, and ISIS came
and took the place of the Syrian Army and
they threaten the city, which is called Deir
Ezzor, because of the American attacks. So,
talking about escalation, it’s already
happening. Talking about direct
confrontation, since World War II, that
never happened, I mean, it was very close to
happening during the Cuban missile crisis,
in 1962 I think. Now the situation is
different, because in the United States you
don’t have superior statecraft. When you
don’t have superior statecraft, you should
expect anything, and you should always
expect the worse. I’m sure that Russia is
doing its best not to reach that point, but
do the Americans – or, let’s say, the
“hawks” part or the group within the
administration – do their best to avoid that
confrontation, or the opposite, do their
best to have this confrontation with Russia?
That’s what worries us.
Question 21: And talking about the incident
in Deir Ezzor on September 17. It was
British, Australian, US, and Danish fighter
jets who allegedly attacked the Syrian Army.
Denmark, like the other countries, they said
it was a mistake. Do you accept that
explanation?
President Assad: We accept the explanation,
but that doesn’t mean we accept that error,
doesn’t mean we justify it. To say a
mistake, maybe you have the wrong
information, especially as you are
fulfilling an American mission; I’m sure not
the Danish, not the British, decided which
target they should attack. I’m sure the
Americans said “this is our target, and this
is where ISIS is.” Of course, they deceive
the others, and tell them “we’re going to
attack ISIS.” Maybe that’s the truth. But is
it acceptable for the Danish people that
your army is fulfilling military missions of
other countries without verifying the target
and knowing where is it heading? Do you take
a bus without knowing where the bus is going
to? You don’t. So, it’s not acceptable.
Maybe it’s a mistake, that’s true, but the
mistake is not acceptable.
Question 22: So do you think that,
indirectly, Denmark, they were helping ISIS?
President Assad: In reality, they helped
ISIS because of this attack, because they
killed tens of Syrian soldiers who are
defending the city of Deir Ezzor from being
under the control of ISIS, and now ISIS took
the place, took the hills that overlook the
city, so they could be able someday to take
control of Deir Ezzor because of that
attack.
Question 23: And you think that the US, they
did that on purpose, and Denmark, they
helped them without knowing?
President Assad: I don’t know about Denmark;
I don’t know if it’s without knowing. Maybe.
The only reason that makes me believe so is
because the Europeans implement and fulfill
what the Americans want in every field
without asking and without discussing, to be
frank, so it could be one of the reasons.
But for the Americans, a hundred percent,
they did it intentionally, because ISIS
gathered their militants in the same place
before the attack, and when the attack
started, it took about one hour, and in the
next hour ISIS attacked and took control of
those hills. How could ISIS knew about this
raid before it happened? Of course, this is
not the only indication for us that the
United States is supporting ISIS, the attack
on Palmyra, when they occupied and took
control of Palmyra under the supervision of
the Americans, the smuggling of oil, the
extraction of oil from oil fields in Syria
in the desert in the middle of the day. This
is a strong indication that the United
States has been supporting ISIS in order to
use ISIS.
Question 24: Until now, the Danish
government they have followed US policy
towards Syria. They even said that they were
willing to engage in a military operation
against the Syrian Army. What do you think
about the Danish policy towards Syria?
President Assad: First of all, the
intervention in Syria, as part of the
international coalition which is actually an
American coalition, this is against the
international law, this is against the
sovereignty of Syria because this is not in
coordination with the Syrian government,
while the Russian came to Syria after taking
the permission of the Syrians; actually
after having an invitation from the Syrian
government to support us in our fight
against the terror. So this is against the
sovereignty, this is against the
international law and this is against any
moralized policy anywhere in the world. It’s
illegal.
The
other aspect of that policy is the embargo.
As part of the European Union, they made
embargo on the Syrian population; tens of
millions of Syrians, they are not allowed to
reach the basic needs of their life. For
example, you cannot buy now pumps for the
water, they cannot buy medical equipment to
diagnose somebody who has a cancer who would
die because he cannot afford these
materials. The embargo prevents the Syrian
companies, airlines companies, from having
spare parts for their airplanes in order to
prevent those airplanes from crashing in the
air and killing the passengers. This is the
policy of the European Union, and Denmark is
part of that policy.
Question 25: But what else should they do? I
mean, they are very much against what’s
going on in Syria right now. They have been
supporting the opposition. Maybe they don’t
want to be involved in a direct war with the
Syrian Army. So what else to do?
President Assad: For the government?
Journalist: Yes.
President Assad: The question is would you
as a Danish citizen accept me as a foreigner
to support opposition in your country with
money and to tell them “go and kill, and
that’s how you achieve your political
goals?” If there is opposition, what is the
definition of opposition? Could you accept
an opposition in your country that belongs
to other countries? Or should it be a Danish
opposition that belongs to Danish people.
They cannot tell which opposition to support
in any other country. This is an
intervention in internal matters. This is
against the sovereignty, against the
international law. They don’t have the right
to support anyone in Syria against anyone.
It’s not their business. We are a sovereign
country; we are independent. We have the
right to tackle our problems. So, they’re
not in a position to support anyone, whether
right or wrong.
Question 26: Do you see Denmark as an enemy
of Syria?
President Assad: No, they are not. They are
not an enemy. There is a big difference
between the Danish people, like most of the
European people, they were friends to Syria,
but it’s about the policy of the government.
It’s about whole Europe now being absent
from the political map at least since 2003
after the invasion of Iraq, just because
they had to follow the Americans, and they
don’t dare to take their independent, let’s
say, path in politics. We differentiate
precisely between the government and the
people of Denmark, and the same for other
countries.
Question 27: If it could speed up the
negotiations for a peaceful future in Syria,
if you left office and may be another one
from the Syrian administration took over,
why wouldn’t you do that?
President Assad: To leave, you mean?
Journalist: Yes.
President Assad: That depends on the Syrian
people. It’s not my decision. And if you
don’t have the support of the Syrian people,
you have to leave right away, because
without their support, you cannot achieve
anything, you cannot produce anything, you
are going to fail. So that’s simply the
reason, especially during the war you have
to lead the ship to the shore; you don’t run
away because there is a war, unless the
Syrian people want you to leave. If I’m the
problem, again, or the other point, let’s
say, or the other side of the story, if I’m
the reason of the war, I would leave. But
it’s not about me; I am just used as a
nominal reason. It’s much bigger than that;
it’s about Syria, it’s about the government,
it’s about the independence, it is about the
war on the regional level, it is about the
war between the great powers. Syria is just
the headline and the President is the main
headline.
Question 28: So you don’t think that you are
one of the reasons for the war?
President Assad: No, I am not a reason for
the war, because if I am a reason, the war
should have started in 2000, since I became
President, not 2011 when the money started
pouring from Qatar and when the United
States took the decision that they want
topple governments and presidents because
they do not suit them.
Question 29: But don’t you think you are the
reason that the war escalated?
President Assad: Because of me?
Journalist: Yes.
President Assad: So, the terrorists
according to what you are saying, terrorists
are not responsible, they are very peaceful
people. The money of Qatar and Saudi Arabia
and Turkey are something legal and natural,
let’s say, and the agenda of the United
States fulfilled the needs of the Syrian
people, which is not realistic.
Question 30: Mr. President, you have said
many times that you will continue the fight
until you have recaptured the whole country,
is that still your approach to this process?
President Assad: No, it’s not my approach;
it’s my mission according to the
constitution. It’s the mission of the army
according to the constitution; it’s the
mission of the state’s institutions
according to the constitution. It’s not an
option, it’s not a personal opinion, and
it’s not my plan. My mission is to defend
the civilians. My mission is to fight
terrorists. My mission is to take control of
every part of my country. You don’t take
part of your country as a state. You don’t
say “it is enough for me have half of the
country” or so.
Question 31: So you think that you are
defending the civilians?
President Assad: Definitely.
Question 32: I mean more than hundreds of
thousands of civilians have been killed;
some people say 250 thousands; some people
say 300 thousands. Do you think that you are
defending the civilians in Syria?
President Assad: The majority of those that
you are talking about, the victims, are
supporters of the government, not the
opposite. Another part which is unbiased, in
the middle, it doesn’t belong to the
government or to the other. So the majority
are supporters. So, of course, I am
defending the civilians. Again, otherwise if
I’m not, If I’m killing the civilians, as
the propaganda would promote for four years,
I wouldn’t be here as President. I cannot
withstand for nearly six years.
Question 33: Last question, Mr. President:
Do you believe in a diplomatic political
solution, or do you, deep inside your heart,
know that this is going to be a military
solution, and that is really what you want?
President Assad: Neither, neither, because
when you have a problem you have a solution,
you don’t have a kind of solution, but the
problem itself will tell you how many
aspects of that problems you have. For
example, if I believe in political solution
but you have terrorism, you cannot have a
political solution because you have chaos.
If you have chaos, this is the antithesis to
anything natural, including the political
process. So, you need first to fight
terrorists in order to reach political
solution. So, in reality, you have to follow
both paths; the military and the diplomatic
or the political, because they are related
to each other. So, it’s not about my belief;
it’s not what I believe; it’s what the
requirement of this conflict to be solved.
So you don’t define it. The whole
circumstances define it. For example,
regarding the terrorists, it’s not only
about military solution; it’s about the
adjacent countries and the Western countries
stop supporting the terrorists. If they stop
supporting them, the military aspect of that
solution will be marginalized; it won’t be
important because they will be weak. You
will give a chance to more political
initiatives in that regard. If they support
them more, actually what is going to happen
is the opposite; the political solution or
path will be marginalized. So, it’s not
about what I believe in. I wish we can solve
everything politically, I wish, that’s what
I think is suitable, but it’s not about what
I wish, it’s about the facts on the ground.
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)