RUTHFULLY YOURS

ttps://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21225/middle-east-definitions

After saving Syria from Assad, who will save it from the saviors?

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is going on a tour to persuade the Turks and their Jihadis to establish an “inclusive” government in Syria. But inclusivity now means Sunni Jihadis, backed by Turkey, repressing and killing everyone else. This will be a fundamental liberating change from the old order, in which Shiite Jihadis, backed by Iran, repressed and killed everyone else.

Turkey bombing and displacing Kurds in Syria is considered “inclusivity”, but Israel bombing Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon is termed “genocide”.

“Genocide” is another of those many words that have different meanings in the New Middle East Dictionary. Amnesty International has come under fire for changing the definition of “genocide” in order to be able to accuse Israel of it.

War becomes genocide. But only in the case of Israel. Meanwhile, actual genocidal efforts by Hamas on October 7, 2023, and by Turkey in Syria to target ethnic groups, are redefined as “liberation”.

Over 1 million tons of food have entered Gaza since October 7, 2023. That’s half a ton for every terrorist supporter. Half a ton of food for every man, woman and child is… “starvation.”

The Arab Spring redefined Islamist takeovers as “democracy movements”.

When Muslim Jihadis commit genocide, it becomes liberation. And when anyone fights back against them, it’s genocide.

Redefinition makes everything in the Middle East factually opposite, to make it morally opposite.

Even as Islamic Jihadists are taking over Syria, ethnically cleansing Kurds and terrorizing Christians, the media is hailing the new “inclusive” regime which “liberated” Syria.

The regime is indeed inclusive if you consider bearded men with assault rifles to be the measure of inclusivity. And terrorizing minorities to be the exciting new diversity.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21207/neutralize-iran-nuclear-threat

The regime’s primary goal is, first, to stay in power; second, to acquire nuclear weapons. No amount of diplomatic engagement will deter it from pursuing these objectives. Any agreement would merely buy more time for Iran to refine its nuclear technologies while easing international pressure. The regime’s strategy is to outlast all sanctions and inspections, while continuing its covert nuclear activities, repressing it citizens, and planning its future expansion.

The international community would do the world a favor by stopping Iran from reaching both goals. If not, there will be no chance of durable stability in the Middle East. It is as simple as that.

The idea of negotiating a “deal” to limit, control or “verify” Iran’s nuclear activities has proven to be both ineffective and dangerous…. Iran has repeatedly violated international agreements and deceived global watchdogs. It seems clear that any new deal would likely meet the same fate. Trusting such a regime to honor its commitments is like trusting the cat to guard the cream.

Only by neutralizing the entire Iranian threat will the world be able to work toward a future of stability, prosperity and peace.

The highest priority in addressing the upheavals in the Middle East is to eliminate — completely — Iran’s nuclear threat.

Iran is reportedly close to being a nuclear-armed state. Such a development would have catastrophic consequences for the region as well as for global stability. Acquiring nuclear weapons would embolden Iran’s regime, re-strengthen its proxies, and enable it to resume escalating its terror campaigns across the region.

Once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, it will become virtually impossible to contain or neutralize its aggression – presumably the reason the regime is so eager to have nuclear weapons in the first place. The risk of retaliation by nuclear strikes would deter even the most powerful nations from military intervention. An Iran with nuclear weapons would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East and beyond.

https://jihadwatch.org/2024/12/syrias-new-prime-minister-makes-clear-no-reconciliation-with-iran?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syrias-new-prime-minister-makes-clear-no-reconciliation-with-iran

A rapprochement with Iran is very far from the thoughts of Syrians. Most of them recognize the vital support Iran gave to keep the mass-torturer and murderer Bashar Assad in power for nearly a quarter of a century. They will neither forget nor forgive. But there is always the possibility that some jihadist group in Syria will want, not in order to do Iran’s bidding but just because, as dutiful Muslims, they believe it their duty, to make war on the “Zionist entity.” It is this group that the IDF has to worry most about it. And since the Syrian military has dissolved into thin air, with many military sites left unguarded, the IDF knew that this was the time to remove the threat of those weapons from falling into the hands of a new, possibly hostile regime ensconced in Damascus, or from non-state actors inside Syria, by destroying as many of those weapons as possible.

Many Syrian refugees will want to return to their country. Some, however, will not want to go back, but must be forced to return, for they are an economic burden to the countries where they have been taken in. Turkey, for example, where three million Syrian refugees now live, is spending billions of dollars to maintain them. In Western Europe, countries have reacted to the overthrow of Assad by halting applications for asylum from Syria. The tyranny has ended, and the new regime promises to respect the rights of minorities, so why should people who want to leave Syria for economic reasons be allowed to claim refugee status? Furthermore, the millions of Syrians who are now in Western Europe — there are one million Syrians in Germany alone — need not be allowed to remain as “refugees,” a status to which they are no longer entitled. They should be repatriated at once. That would save those countries billions of dollars, and also reduce the Muslim presence in their lands that has proven to be so unsettling and dangerous.

When asked by that newspaper’s correspondent at Damascus about speculation that he is open to peace with Israel but not with Hezbollah, Russia, or Iran, Mr. Bashir declined to answer.