southfront--2020-08-13--Blight and Revelation: Coronavirus, Austerity and the UK

Epidemiologist Michael Marmot begins his August 10 piece in on a sombre note .
It is drawn from by Albert Camus .
“ The pestilence is at once blight and revelation ; it brings the hidden truth of a corrupt world to the surface.
” Professor Marmot uses the UK ’ s inglorious record on combating COVID-19 as a mirror for both blight and revelation .
“ We are doing badly : dramatic social inequalities in COVID-19 deaths ; rates in black , Asian and minority ethnic groups ; and , now , the highest excess mortality rate in Europe.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the board of gloom with a report for the Institute of Health Equity , released before the virus fully bit .
Its focus was upon an increasingly sickened England .
Health Equity in England : The Marmot Review 10 Years On , was a collective effort of monumental gloom .
It notes that , since 2010 , “ widespread and deep cuts in most areas of public spending ” have taken place , a result of the austerity regime put in place in response “ to perceived financial pressures.
” As a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an astonishing seven percentage points between 2009-2010 and 2018-2019 , from 42 percent to 35 percent .
Particularly stinging were those to local authorities .
Local government allocations declined some 77 percent between 2009-2010 and 2018-2019 .
Expenditure on “ social protection and education , both vital for health , have declined most – by 1.5 percent of GDP.
” The very fact of the cuts was less significant than their regressive and inequitable nature .
Those areas in need were strafed , harming health and deepening the divide in health inequalities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do so in the longer term.
” Public Health England had its budget cut by 40 percent from its founding in 2012 to 2019-2020 .
The political picture is also telling .
Health had deteriorated in those constituencies that had voted for Brexit and came out in droves to vote for the Tory government led by Boris Johnson .
Such seats , despite leaving the Labour bosom and going blue , have a life expectancy of 60.9 years in good health , four years less than those in Tory strongholds and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 61.4 years ) .
When the report was released , a spokesman for Prime Minister Johnson drew heavily on the common book of platitudes .
“ Every single person deserves to lead a long and healthy life , no matter where they are , where they live or their social circumstances.
” From his first day in office , he continued , Johnson had expressed a commitment “ to levelling up the whole country .
While life expectancy is increasing we know that it isn ’ t for everyone , and so we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rather telling : life expectancy not being for everyone .
And so it showed with devastating effect , the coronavirus cutting its way through the country and making its deadly contribution .
Between March 1 and May 31 , 2020 , COVID-19 was assigned as the underlying cause of death to 43,763 people .
At one point , it looked like the statisticians of mortality would have had the addition of the prime minister himself , that buffoonish hand shaker of the first order so keen to meet all and sundry .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more blemished .
On July 30 , the Office for National Statistics found that for the period between February 21 to June 21 , the excess mortality rate for England was higher than in any European countries , even relative to those within the United Kingdom .
From 2010 , the life expectancy in the UK had already started to slow , having been , for almost a century , increasing at a rate of one year in every four .
By 2018 , it had stuttered to a halt .
As Marmot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , “ improvement in life expectancy in the UK from 2010 on was the slowest of all , except for the US and Iceland.
” This occurred in step with increasing inequalities ; the narrowing gap in life expectancy between the poorest 20 percent of areas and the rest that had taken place during the 2000s was reversed after 2010 .
A clear postulation can therefore be made , the effects of a “ social gradient in mortality rates ” .
COVID-19 merely served to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be duly attributed to more general inequalities in health .
The policy of austerity , having weakened the UK and its means of dealing with the pandemic , has itself become a populist measure for the Tories .
In June , Johnson felt a touch of FDR about him , suggesting that a Roosevelt New Deal implemented in United States during the 1930s might be adapted in the UK to fight the effects of the virus .
Capital works were promised ; infrastructure projects long ignored would finally be considered .
In doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a regime of austerity would be a “ mistake ” .
But ever true to his own knotted logic , Johnson refused to call it “ austerity ” himself ( “ it wasn ’ t actually austerity but people called it austerity ” ) .
That same month , former Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid similarly warned against any temptation to return to such belt-tightening exercises .
Unfortunately , his solution has been the usual trickle-down fare : cut taxes , thereby stimulating business , employment and spending .
“ Tax employment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equal you will end up with more of it.
” Equality , never a word for the Tory policy book , is precisely the problem there .
Britain should not be seen as a singular case of exclusive awfulness , though it is worth noting that all suffering societies are singular in their own way in how they have responded to the novel coronavirus .
Social inequalities , poor services and penny pinching dogmatists have been shown up .
The calamities in Brazil and the United States also serve to illustrate the huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not ) and harms its citizens .
This modern pestilence continues to hold up both mirror and revelation , and has found the idea and practice of austerity wanting .
A corrupt world has been exposed .
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College , Cambridge .
He lectures at RMIT University , Melbourne .
Email : bkampmark @ gmail.com MORE ON THE TOPIC :

Support SouthFront
Dr. Binoy Kampmark
Epidemiologist Michael Marmot begins his August 10 piece in The Guardian on a sombre note. It is drawn from The Plague by Albert Camus. “The pestilence is at once blight and revelation; it brings the hidden truth of a corrupt world to the surface.” Professor Marmot uses the UK’s inglorious record on combating COVID-19 as a mirror for both blight and revelation. “We are doing badly: dramatic social inequalities in COVID-19 deaths; rates in black, Asian and minority ethnic groups; and, now, the highest excess mortality rate in Europe.”
Marmot had already gotten his runs on the board of gloom with a report for the Institute of Health Equity, released before the virus fully bit. Its focus was upon an increasingly sickened England. Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 Years On, was a collective effort of monumental gloom. It notes that, since 2010, “widespread and deep cuts in most areas of public spending” have taken place, a result of the austerity regime put in place in response “to perceived financial pressures.”
As a percentage of GDP, government spending fell an astonishing seven percentage points between 2009-2010 and 2018-2019, from 42 percent to 35 percent. Particularly stinging were those to local authorities. Local government allocations declined some 77 percent between 2009-2010 and 2018-2019. Expenditure on “social protection and education, both vital for health, have declined most – by 1.5 percent of GDP.”
The very fact of the cuts was less significant than their regressive and inequitable nature. Those areas in need were strafed, harming health and deepening the divide in health inequalities in the short term and “are likely to do so in the longer term.” Public Health England had its budget cut by 40 percent from its founding in 2012 to 2019-2020.
The political picture is also telling. Health had deteriorated in those constituencies that had voted for Brexit and came out in droves to vote for the Tory government led by Boris Johnson. Such seats, despite leaving the Labour bosom and going blue, have a life expectancy of 60.9 years in good health, four years less than those in Tory strongholds and a pinch less than current Labour seats (61.4 years).
When the report was released, a spokesman for Prime Minister Johnson drew heavily on the common book of platitudes. “Every single person deserves to lead a long and healthy life, no matter where they are, where they live or their social circumstances.” From his first day in office, he continued, Johnson had expressed a commitment “to levelling up the whole country. While life expectancy is increasing we know that it isn’t for everyone, and so we must tackle the gaps that exist.”
Rather telling: life expectancy not being for everyone. And so it showed with devastating effect, the coronavirus cutting its way through the country and making its deadly contribution. Between March 1 and May 31, 2020, COVID-19 was assigned as the underlying cause of death to 43,763 people. At one point, it looked like the statisticians of mortality would have had the addition of the prime minister himself, that buffoonish hand shaker of the first order so keen to meet all and sundry.
Now, the already poor record is even more blemished. On July 30, the Office for National Statistics found that for the period between February 21 to June 21, the excess mortality rate for England was higher than in any European countries, even relative to those within the United Kingdom.
From 2010, the life expectancy in the UK had already started to slow, having been, for almost a century, increasing at a rate of one year in every four. By 2018, it had stuttered to a halt. As Marmot reminds us, compared with other states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “improvement in life expectancy in the UK from 2010 on was the slowest of all, except for the US and Iceland.” This occurred in step with increasing inequalities; the narrowing gap in life expectancy between the poorest 20 percent of areas and the rest that had taken place during the 2000s was reversed after 2010. A clear postulation can therefore be made, the effects of a “social gradient in mortality rates”. COVID-19 merely served to sharpen it: unequal COVID-19 outcomes can be duly attributed to more general inequalities in health.
The policy of austerity, having weakened the UK and its means of dealing with the pandemic, has itself become a populist measure for the Tories. In June, Johnson felt a touch of FDR about him, suggesting that a Roosevelt New Deal implemented in United States during the 1930s might be adapted in the UK to fight the effects of the virus. Capital works were promised; infrastructure projects long ignored would finally be considered. In doing so, he suggested that returning to a regime of austerity would be a “mistake”. But ever true to his own knotted logic, Johnson refused to call it “austerity” himself (“it wasn’t actually austerity but people called it austerity”).
That same month, former Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid similarly warned against any temptation to return to such belt-tightening exercises. Unfortunately, his solution has been the usual trickle-down fare: cut taxes, thereby stimulating business, employment and spending. “Tax employment less, and all other things being equal you will end up with more of it.” Equality, never a word for the Tory policy book, is precisely the problem there.
Britain should not be seen as a singular case of exclusive awfulness, though it is worth noting that all suffering societies are singular in their own way in how they have responded to the novel coronavirus. Social inequalities, poor services and penny pinching dogmatists have been shown up. The calamities in Brazil and the United States also serve to illustrate the huge problems in how the state delivers (or not) and harms its citizens. This modern pestilence continues to hold up both mirror and revelation, and has found the idea and practice of austerity wanting. A corrupt world has been exposed.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-08-13--SouthFront Videos On BitChute

SouthFront Videos On BitChute

SouthFront continues facing an agressive censorship and pressure campaign from Euro-Atlantic structures and global corporations .
Despite this pressure , SouthFront Team is set to continue our fight for the freedom of speech , against mainstream censorship and propaganda .
In August , we are planning to release even more content and announce some ‘ surprises ’ that will for sure bother our friends from the US State Department and global censorship structures .
Meanwhile , we kindly remind that you can also find SouthFront videos on BitChute , an independent video hosting service that has become known as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ YouTube .
Please , share this message with the global audience .
Also , please , inform your friends , your social circles about SouthFront as an independent platform covering crucial developments in the Middle East and around the world .
Donate via VISA , PayPal , Paysafecard , Bitcoin and other options .
This systems accepts all types of cards , PayPal , Amazon Payments , bitcoin ( FAQ is under the main text , in P.S . )
You can subscribe for a monthly donation of $ 15 ( or any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donation by clicking buttons below

Support SouthFront
DEAR FRIENDS,
SouthFront continues facing an agressive censorship and pressure campaign from Euro-Atlantic structures and global corporations.
Despite this pressure, SouthFront Team is set to continue our fight for the freedom of speech, against mainstream censorship and propaganda. In August, we are planning to release even more content and announce some ‘surprises’ that will for sure bother our friends from the US State Department and global censorship structures.
Meanwhile, we kindly remind that you can also find SouthFront videos on BitChute, an independent video hosting service that has become known as an alternative for activists and organizations censored on YouTube.
The SouthFront channel on BitChute:
Please, share this message with the global audience. Also, please, inform your friends, your social circles about SouthFront as an independent platform covering crucial developments in the Middle East and around the world.
SUPPORT SOUTHFRNT WORK:
PayPal
Account: southfront@list.ru
DonationAlerts
Donate via VISA, PayPal, Paysafecard, Bitcoin and other options.
Tinypass (Piano)
This systems accepts all types of cards, PayPal, Amazon Payments, bitcoin (FAQ is under the main text, in P.S.)
You can subscribe for a monthly donation of $15 (or any another amount) OR make one time donation by clicking buttons below
Patreon
Donate via SouthFront’s Patreon account (click here)
SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence Team
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-08-13--In Video: Bashar al-Assad Almost Passed Out While Delivering Speech To Parliament Members

Syria ’ s President Bashar al-Assad nearly passed out while delivering a speech to newly-elected members of the country ’ s parliament in a meeting on August 12 .
The meeting was set to be held under the dome of Syria ’ s People ’ s Assembly as usual .
Nevertheless , the meeting was exceptionally held at the People ’ s Palace due to safety measures to confront the coronavirus .
According to the Syrian Arab News Agency , al-Assad suffered a slight , sudden drop in blood pressure that interrupted his speech for a few minutes .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disoriented before apologizing and getting off the stage to take a seat .
The edited footage showed al-Assad returning a few minutes later in a seemingly good shape .
In his speech , al-Assad touched on several issues , including sanctions on Syria , the coronavirus pandemic , the war on corruption as well as the need of economic and political reforms in the war-torn country .
Al-Assad said the economical war on Syria started when the U.S. had failed to subdue the country through other political and military means .
“ whenever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are an escalation , one time they go to the Security Council , another time they escalating in the chemical issue or they bomb our forces , and after the liberation of the west of Aleppo and the south of Idlib , the title was economic aggression to weaken the achievements of our forces ’ victories , making them pale and without meaning for the Syrian people , ” al-Assad said .
The Syrian President also accused the U.S. and Israel of supporting ISIS remnants in central Syria militarily and even financially .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ once again , to liberate all Syrian lands , including the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights .
The Syrian President also threatened Turkish forces that occupy parts of northern and northeastern Syria , saying there is no difference between a “ local or imported terrorist , a Zionist soldier , Turkish or American one , all of them are enemies on our territory.
” After his speech , al-Assad ’ s health quickly became the go-for subject for Syrian opposition outlets , which attempted to capitalize on the issue .
The official Syrian acknowledgment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Damascus is not following the same high-level of secrecy as other regimes in the Middle East .
In 2018 , Damascus announced that al-Assad ’ s wife , Asma , is being treated for early stage breast cancer .
She has fully recovered since then .
MORE ON THIS TOPIC :

Support SouthFront
Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad nearly passed out while delivering a speech to newly-elected members of the country’s parliament in a meeting on August 12.
The meeting was set to be held under the dome of Syria’s People’s Assembly as usual. Nevertheless, the meeting was exceptionally held at the People’s Palace due to safety measures to confront the coronavirus.
According to the Syrian Arab News Agency, al-Assad suffered a slight, sudden drop in blood pressure that interrupted his speech for a few minutes.
In the speech footage al-Assad appeared to be disoriented before apologizing and getting off the stage to take a seat. The edited footage showed al-Assad returning a few minutes later in a seemingly good shape.
“Doctors are the worst patients, the truth is, I did not had any food since yesterday’s afternoon … I eat sugar and salt,” al-Assad, an eye doctor, told his MPs after returning.
In his speech, al-Assad touched on several issues, including sanctions on Syria, the coronavirus pandemic, the war on corruption as well as the need of economic and political reforms in the war-torn country.
Al-Assad said the economical war on Syria started when the U.S. had failed to subdue the country through other political and military means.
“whenever terrorists fail in their missions, there are an escalation, one time they go to the Security Council, another time they escalating in the chemical issue or they bomb our forces, and after the liberation of the west of Aleppo and the south of Idlib, the title was economic aggression to weaken the achievements of our forces’ victories, making them pale and without meaning for the Syrian people,” al-Assad said.
The Syrian President also accused the U.S. and Israel of supporting ISIS remnants in central Syria militarily and even financially.
“The US needs terrorists in the region, on top, Daesh, and it wanted from Caesar Act to express its support to the terrorists,” the President said, adding: “Israeli aggression on Deir Ezzor came to facilitate the movement of Daesh terrorists.”
Al-Assad concluded his speech by vowing, once again, to liberate all Syrian lands, including the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
The Syrian President also threatened Turkish forces that occupy parts of northern and northeastern Syria, saying there is no difference between a “local or imported terrorist, a Zionist soldier, Turkish or American one, all of them are enemies on our territory.”
After his speech, al-Assad’s health quickly became the go-for subject for Syrian opposition outlets, which attempted to capitalize on the issue.
The official Syrian acknowledgment of al-Assad’s health issue indicates show that Damascus is not following the same high-level of secrecy as other regimes in the Middle East. In 2018, Damascus announced that al-Assad’s wife, Asma, is being treated for early stage breast cancer. She has fully recovered since then.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-08-13--US Ninja Bomb Killed Jihadists Military Trainer In Syria’s Greater Idlib (Photos)

A suspected U.S. drone strike has claimed the life of Abu Yahya al-Uzbeki , an infamous jihadist , in the northwestern Syrian region of Greater Idlib .
A drone targeted al-Uzbeki ’ s SUV , a silver Hyundai Santa Fe , south of the town of Sarmada in northern Idlib on August 13 noon .
Al-Uzbeki was killed on the spot .
Other individuals were reportedly injured .
Photos from the strike scene indicate that a U.S.-made AGM-114R9X Hellfire missile was used .
The missile is a Hellfire copy with a kinetic warhead consisting of pop-out blades meant to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the “ Ninja Bomb.
” According to jihadist sources , Abu Yahya al-Uzbeki , a Uzbek citizen , worked as an independent military trainer for several factions in Greater Idlib , including al-Qaeda-affiliated Horas al-Din .
Al-Uzbeki used to cooperate with Abu Ahmad al-Muhajir , “ al-Jazaery , ” who was killed in a U.S. drone strike on the town of Atmeh in northern Idlib in December 2019 .
Al-Jazaery was also targeted with an AGM-114R9X missile .
U.S. drone strikes killed a number of prominent jihadists in Greater Idlib and Turkish-occupied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past few months .
In recent years , these regions have become a safe haven for terrorist groups .
MORE ON THIS TOPIC : • Turkish-Backed Factions In Syria ’ s Grater Idlib Are Training New Fighters ( Photos , video )

Support SouthFront
A suspected U.S. drone strike has claimed the life of Abu Yahya al-Uzbeki, an infamous jihadist, in the northwestern Syrian region of Greater Idlib.
A drone targeted al-Uzbeki’s SUV, a silver Hyundai Santa Fe, south of the town of Sarmada in northern Idlib on August 13 noon. Al-Uzbeki was killed on the spot. Other individuals were reportedly injured.
Photos from the strike scene indicate that a U.S.-made AGM-114R9X Hellfire missile was used. The missile is a Hellfire copy with a kinetic warhead consisting of pop-out blades meant to reduce collateral damage. The missile is famous as the “Ninja Bomb.”
أبو يحيى الأوزبكي ماذا ستقول لربك الآن عن دماء المجاهدين التي استبحتها طاعةً لأميرك الجولاني الذي دل التحالف عليك ليبقى في إمارته الكل يضربه التحالف إلا الجولاني
كيف يضرب الجندي الصغير ويترك القائد المطلوب !!!! pic.twitter.com/EkasYmf0CE — الحُسَيْن (@Al7osayn1) August 13, 2020
According to jihadist sources, Abu Yahya al-Uzbeki, a Uzbek citizen, worked as an independent military trainer for several factions in Greater Idlib, including al-Qaeda-affiliated Horas al-Din.
Al-Uzbeki used to cooperate with Abu Ahmad al-Muhajir, “al-Jazaery,” who was killed in a U.S. drone strike on the town of Atmeh in northern Idlib in December 2019. Al-Jazaery was also targeted with an AGM-114R9X missile.
U.S. drone strikes killed a number of prominent jihadists in Greater Idlib and Turkish-occupied areas in northern Aleppo in over the past few months. In recent years, these regions have become a safe haven for terrorist groups.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-08-14--Evolution Of US-Israel Relations During  Trump Presidency

Preferential treatment for Israel has long been a prerequisite for success in the corridors of power in Washington , where ambitious politicians long ago learned to fear the wrath of ‘ the Israel lobby ’ , and at the same time yearn for the deluge of ‘ Benjamins ’ and other fringe benefits that ‘ the lobby ’ in all its forms and manifestations can muster .
Nonetheless , relations between the leadership of the two countries have reached new heights – and plunged new depths – during the Trump administration .
The United States under the Trump administration has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with the new president regularly insulting and expressing contempt for the US ’ strategic allies and threatening to dismantle the bilateral and multilateral arrangements that they have developed over the course of many years to organize and institutionalize their relations .
The one exception from the outset was the US ‘ special relationship ’ with Israel .
The Foreign Policy Institute summarized the differences between the approaches of the Obama and Trump presidencies to foreign policy in the following manner : However , the differences between the Obama and Trump administrations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Middle East more generally go beyond their personal idiosyncrasies , ideological preferences , strategic objectives and management styles .
They have also been operating in a quantitatively distinct geopolitical environment , with events in many countries throughout the region undergoing major and in some cases abrupt and tectonic shifts , such as the popular uprising in Egypt that ousted Hosni Mubarak , followed by the military coup that ousted and ultimately murdered his successor Mohamed Morsi , and the deepening cooperation – that appears more and more to be some kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests and objectives – between Israel and the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates .
Nonetheless , despite the differences there has also been considerable continuity in certain aspects of US foreign policy .
The same report by the Foreign Policy Institute quoted above explained this apparent contradiction as being primarily due to objective conditions in global politics : However , this is also a very convenient explanation for the extremely powerful groups that have a stranglehold over US foreign policy .
As noted above , there have been some fundamental transformations taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last two decades , and yet despite some turbulence certain aspects of US foreign policy remain constant .
The most constant of all policies is that any suggestion that the US military footprint and associated astronomical military budget might be reduced , in any place or at any time and for any reason , has been promptly buried by an avalanche of criticism from most members of Congress and almost all segments of the corporate media .
Hence , a major showdown appeared imminent at the onset of the Trump administration .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military bases and ending the permanent wars the US is involved in , in particular in Afghanistan but also the military occupation of Iraq as well as open or , more often , covert involvement in disputes and conflicts throughout the region and beyond .
Needless to say , ultimately this great showdown never happened .
When Trump announced that he would withdraw all US military from Syria , where they are deployed in complete contravention of all relevant international and US law , the groups controlling US foreign policy ( as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a short period of time corrected this anomaly .
Very shortly after the revelation that Trump had decided to withdraw all US troops from Syria , a decision that appears to have been made unilaterally by the president , National Security Advisor John Bolton clarified that such a withdrawal might actually take months or years .
Needless to say , there are still an unknown number of US military and contractors in Syria and there is no departure date : Trump managed to save face personally , as he could later claim that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syria ’ s oil .
Soon after the announcement that US troops would be withdrawn from Syria , Trump also directed the Pentagon to halve the number of US troops in Afghanistan , another decision that appeared to have been made unilaterally by the president .
The corporate media and prominent Establishment politicians and pundits immediately responded : Consequently , while there has been an effort to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan in the lead-up to the US elections scheduled to be held later this year , there they remain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and no departure date set , to be reduced to ‘ only ’ 5,000 soldiers apparently ( plus the usual unspecified number of ‘ contractors ’ ) to guard over US Establishment interests and objectives .
They certainly aren ’ t there to safeguard the interests of the American people , much less those of the people of Afghanistan .
One analyst explained the paradoxical comments condemning the supposed similarity between the foreign policies of Obama and Trump in the Middle East as follows : “ While both presidents have advocated decreasing America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their policies are comparable only on the most superficial level .
Obama and Trump have taken contrasting approaches to the Afghanistan war , America ’ s longest .
Both favoured troop withdrawal – but with different intentions .
In June 2011 , Obama announced a multi-year timetable for a withdrawal , after an initial surge .
His goal was to let the Afghan government know that the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan was not open-ended .
The Afghans had to get their house in order , then take over the fight before the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in effect , an announcement of the ‘ Afghanistanization ’ of the war , similar in intent to Richard Nixon ’ s policy of ‘ Vietnamization.
’ In 1969 , Nixon proposed replacing U.S. combat troops with South Vietnamese troops in order to extricate the United States from a seemingly endless war .
This was Obama ’ s goal in Afghanistan as well .
By the end of his second term , however , circumstances there persuaded him to slow the withdrawal .
When Trump announced his policy toward Afghanistan during the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s plan .
According to Trump , “ Conditions on the ground , not arbitrary timetables , will guide our strategy from now on.
” And instead of ‘ Afghanistanization ’ , Trump originally supported increasing the use of force to compel the Taliban , whom the U.S. and its allies are fighting in Afghanistan , to come to the bargaining table .
The Taliban had other ideas .
Rather than being backed into a corner , the Taliban recently made battlefield gains and is defying U.S. efforts to negotiate a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump decided that ‘ conditions on the ground ’ were ripe for a partial U.S. withdrawal… Obama ’ s Afghanistan policy was part of a broader approach his administration took toward the Middle East… Unlike Obama , Trump does not have a Middle East strategy , grand or otherwise .
He has impulses… ” LINK In the broader regional context , Obama believed that the United States had expended far too much blood and treasure in the Middle East under his predecessor , George W. Bush .
For Obama , the region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made it more trouble than it was worth .
Reinforced by the rapidly growing geopolitical and economic might of China across the Pacific , one of his primary goals was to get the United States out of the Middle East and into Asia .
Therefore Obama sought to reduce tensions in the Middle East , and shift the burden of ‘ policing ’ the region to Israel , the Saudis and others , as the United States had done during the Cold War .
In line with the aim of withdrawing US forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ pivot to Asia ’ , the Obama administration forged an international Iran nuclear deal and tried to restart negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians .
However , the chaos created by the Arab uprisings and colour revolutions of 2010-11 , and the resistance of US allies in the region to what they believed was US disengagement and neglect , prevented Obama from achieving many of these goals .
Unlike Obama , Trump does not appear to have a cohesive Middle East strategy , and most of his decisions are not based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ region and the needs and interests of the countries and people there .
In the Trump administration , there are only two sets of interests that count , and they count above everything else : the interests of the US ( as perceived and interpreted by the Trump administration ) , and Israel .
If there is one country on Earth that equals Trump ’ s contempt for international law and the US Establishment ’ s addiction to permanent war it is Israel , which has enjoyed the protection of the US veto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was created ( the main exception being during the Suez Crisis ) .
Another common factor in the specific case of Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is their billionaire benefactor Sheldon Adelson , who has particularly close ties with both and has provided vast sums to smooth their way to power and keep them there .
LINK1 , LINK2 Yet the ties between the two go further : Thus bilateral US-Israel relations and cooperation on the international scene to achieve common objectives were set to reach unprecedented levels .
Nonetheless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military benefits Israel has received over the last four years was merely part of the built-in financial , military , technological and diplomatic largesse that the US bestows on Israel year after year , jealously protected by a bipartisan chorus that very few members of the US Congress can resist .
The twenty-six standing ovations Netanyahu received for his mediocre address before the US Congress in 2015 should be sufficient testimony on this point .
The power of the Israel lobby in US politics and corporate media was also put on display on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infringed upon one of the lobby ’ s sacred cows when George Bush ( Snr ) threatened to withhold US aid to Israel should Israeli President Chaim Herzog not cease the construction of new settlements in the West Bank .
After determined lobbying of the US Congress by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC ) in particular , accompanied by a withering corporate media backlash , Bush stated that he was : “ one lonely little guy , up against some powerful political forces made up of a thousand lobbyists on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as one of the main protagonists behind the lobbying campaign sparked another barrage of criticism for which Bush later apologized , agreeing to send Israel its grants in foreign aid irrespective of the policies and conduct of the Israeli government and whether they are compatible with the interests of the people of the US .
In 2007 , George Bush ( Jnr ) signed an agreement with Israel promising to provide $ 30 billion in US military aid to Israel for a 10 year period .
Barack Obama also duly signed a deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel .
While the Obama administration generally maintained the US ’ favourable posture towards Israel , it declined to back some of the Israeli leadership ’ s more insistent and reckless demands , foremost among which was that the US isolate , demonize and ultimately attack Iran .
Indeed , Obama went one step further and ended the staged confrontation over Iran ’ s nuclear energy program by signing the JCPOA along with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany , successfully quashing a dangerous flashpoint – for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s final major decisions as president , to not veto a Security Council resolution condemning Israel ’ s annexation of Palestinian territory and the construction of Israeli settlements on territory occupied in the aftermath of the 1967 war , earned him the wrath of ‘ the lobby ’ and a public flaying in the corporate media , typical of the political excommunication of those that waver even the slightest in placing the interests of Israel above all others , including those of the US .
A prominent hit piece in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disgraceful and harmful legacy on Israel ” , gives just a small taste of the barrage of wailing and gnashing of teeth that followed : “ For all eight years of the Obama administration , Democrats have made believe that Barack Obama is a firm and enthusiastic supporter and defender of the Jewish state .
Arguments to the contrary were not only dismissed but angrily denounced as the products of nothing more than vicious partisanship .
Obama ’ s defenders repeatedly used the trope that “ Israel should not be a partisan issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been ground into dust by Obama ’ s action Friday allowing a nasty and harmful anti-Israel resolution to pass the United Nations Security Council .
Just weeks before leaving office , he could not resist the opportunity to take one more swipe at Israel—and to do real harm .
So he will leave with his record on Israel in ruins , and he will leave Democrats even worse off… Today ’ s anti-Israel action will further damage the Democratic party , by driving some Jews if not toward the Republicans then at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Donald Trump ’ s clear statement on Thursday that he favored a veto , Netanyahu ’ s fervent pleas for one , and the Egyptian action in postponing the vote show where Obama stood : not with Israel , not even with Egypt , but with the Palestinians .
Pleas for a veto from Democrats in Congress were ignored by the White House .
Does the resolution matter ?
It does .
The text declares that “ the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law ” … The text demands “ that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory , including East Jerusalem ” … The resolution also “ calls upon all States , to distinguish , in their relevant dealings , between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.
” This is a call to boycott products of the Golan , the West Bank , and parts of Jerusalem , and support for the Boycott , Divestment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought this was all fine and refused to veto .
Settlements have been an obsession for Obama since the second day of his term in office , January 22 , 2009 .
That day he appointed George Mitchell to be his special peace envoy , and adopted the view that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the key to peace in the entire region and that freezing construction in settlements was the key to Israeli-Palestinian peace… ” LINK A report by provides another perspective on the Obama administration ’ s relations with Israel and policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the major shifts that has occurred in the bedrock of geopolitics in the Middle East is the relations between the Gulf States , particularly the Saudis and the UAE , and Israel .
While the respective parties are still reticent to openly acknowledge the extent to which their interests and objectives are aligned and the nature of their collaboration , the fact that such alignment can now be openly discussed is in itself a paradigm shift .
This has already become a part of the ‘ new normal ’ under the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administrations on their policies towards Israel and the Middle East more generally , despite the above-mentioned continuities , is also clearly demonstrated with respect to the latter point mentioned in the report by the quoted above , the cornerstone issue of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory and a broader Israel-Palestine peace agreement .
The article in the Guardian argued in this respect : Indeed , the US Embassy is now located in Jerusalem .
An article posted by the provides a very different interpretation of the topic of illegal Israeli settlements and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summation of the Trump administration ’ s proposal to resolve the Israel-Palestine question , the ‘ Deal of the Century ’ drafted pursuant to the directives of Trump ’ s son-in-law Jared Kushner .
The ‘ more realistic proposals ’ require them to surrender all aspirations to a Palestinian State and most of their territory , to live in a few scattered enclaves surrounded and guarded by Israeli security forces .
As noted previously , in stark contrast to relations with Israel , Trumps decisions and policies with respect to other countries in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the US has traditionally offered unwavering support , have been opportunistic , patronising and condescending if not downright insulting , and always based on the fundamental principle of ‘ America ( and Israel ) first ’ .
The relations between the Saudis and the Trump administration are illustrative in this respect , as they have concluded massive weapons deals and the US has continued to support the Saudi ’ s and UAE ’ s genocidal war against Yemen even as Trump has twittered that the Saudi regime is inherently unviable and would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardware that the US provides as well as the technical expertise required to operate it .
The relations between the Trump administration and other countries with ‘ autocratic ’ regimes in the region have been similar , in effect a necessary business arrangement to be concluded amidst effusive expressions of friendship despite the mutual dislike , if not contempt , that exists between the respective parties .
For example , Trump ’ s casting aside of all diplomatic niceties ( not to mention pretences and charades ) at a function attended by US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s conduct of foreign policy has been spontaneous , erratic and opportunistic , his support for Israel has been consistent and absolute .
This may be due in part to his benefactor Sheldon Adelson ’ s influence , but on many related matters their positions were probably not that far apart to begin with even if the finer details and specific decisions remained to be defined : While it has always been unpredictable and subject to abrupt tectonic shifts in the external environment , the future course of relations between the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again is located on the threshold of a major juncture with the presidential elections scheduled to be held in a few months and turmoil peaking throughout the Middle East region , most recently with the catastrophic accident or attack that has devastated Lebanon .
Whether Trump or Biden win the elections , or whether they are held at all , is unlikely to significantly affect the Establishment dogma of the primacy bestowed upon Israel in the conduct of US foreign policy .
MORE ON THE TOPIC : • Ripple effects Greece and Turkey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • The virus and the US ‘ defense ’ industry • The pinnacle of the pyramid of wealth and power : the buck stops here

Support SouthFront
DEAR FRIENDS. IF YOU LIKE THIS TYPE OF CONTENT, SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT WORK: PayPal: southfront@internet.ru Donation alerts: https://donationalerts.com/r/southfront Gumroad: https://gumroad.com/southfront Or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront, BTC: 3Gbs4rjcVUtQd8p3CiFUCxPLZwRqurezRZ, BCH ABC: qpf2cphc5dkuclkqur7lhj2yuqq9pk3hmukle77vhq, ETH: 0x9f4cda013e354b8fc285bf4b9a60460cee7f7ea9
Preferential treatment for Israel has long been a prerequisite for success in the corridors of power in Washington, where ambitious politicians long ago learned to fear the wrath of ‘the Israel lobby’, and at the same time yearn for the deluge of ‘Benjamins’ and other fringe benefits that ‘the lobby’ in all its forms and manifestations can muster. Nonetheless, relations between the leadership of the two countries have reached new heights – and plunged new depths – during the Trump administration.
The United States under the Trump administration has undergone a shift in its foreign policy, with the new president regularly insulting and expressing contempt for the US’ strategic allies and threatening to dismantle the bilateral and multilateral arrangements that they have developed over the course of many years to organize and institutionalize their relations. The one exception from the outset was the US ‘special relationship’ with Israel.
The Foreign Policy Institute summarized the differences between the approaches of the Obama and Trump presidencies to foreign policy in the following manner:
“Trump is a kind of illiberal alter ego of Obama. Whereas Obama looked to use force alongside allies (“leading from behind” in the 2011 Libya War), Trump has long been disdainful toward America’s coalition partners. In 1987, Trump paid for an advertisement in the New York Times that railed against allies, “taking advantage of the United States.” As president, Trump has been deeply critical of trade agreements and has withdrawn from more treaties and organizations than all the other post-Cold War U.S. administrations combined. Whereas Obama spoke eloquently about the importance of the American creed, or the founding ideals of human rights and democracy, Trump may be the first president to openly admire foreign despots. Whereas Obama traveled to Cairo in 2009 in pursuit of a ‘new beginning’ between the United States and Muslims around the world, Trump wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the United States…”
However, the differences between the Obama and Trump administrations in terms of their dealings with Israel and in the Middle East more generally go beyond their personal idiosyncrasies, ideological preferences, strategic objectives and management styles. They have also been operating in a quantitatively distinct geopolitical environment, with events in many countries throughout the region undergoing major and in some cases abrupt and tectonic shifts, such as the popular uprising in Egypt that ousted Hosni Mubarak, followed by the military coup that ousted and ultimately murdered his successor Mohamed Morsi, and the deepening cooperation – that appears more and more to be some kind of strategic alliance based on profound common interests and objectives – between Israel and the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates.
Nonetheless, despite the differences there has also been considerable continuity in certain aspects of US foreign policy. The same report by the Foreign Policy Institute quoted above explained this apparent contradiction as being primarily due to objective conditions in global politics:
“Surprisingly, however, there’s significant continuity between the Obama and Trump foreign policy doctrines because of something that is much more difficult for Trump to ignore—geopolitics. Obama and Trump are like two siblings who deeply dislike each other, and seem opposites in every possible way, and yet nevertheless share many of the same genes…”
However, this is also a very convenient explanation for the extremely powerful groups that have a stranglehold over US foreign policy. As noted above, there have been some fundamental transformations taking place in the Middle East over the last two decades, and yet despite some turbulence certain aspects of US foreign policy remain constant.
The most constant of all policies is that any suggestion that the US military footprint and associated astronomical military budget might be reduced, in any place or at any time and for any reason, has been promptly buried by an avalanche of criticism from most members of Congress and almost all segments of the corporate media.
Hence, a major showdown appeared imminent at the onset of the Trump administration. Trump campaigned on the promise of closing overseas military bases and ending the permanent wars the US is involved in, in particular in Afghanistan but also the military occupation of Iraq as well as open or, more often, covert involvement in disputes and conflicts throughout the region and beyond. Needless to say, ultimately this great showdown never happened.
When Trump announced that he would withdraw all US military from Syria, where they are deployed in complete contravention of all relevant international and US law, the groups controlling US foreign policy (as it affects their core interests) had within a short period of time corrected this anomaly. Very shortly after the revelation that Trump had decided to withdraw all US troops from Syria, a decision that appears to have been made unilaterally by the president, National Security Advisor John Bolton clarified that such a withdrawal might actually take months or years.
Needless to say, there are still an unknown number of US military and contractors in Syria and there is no departure date: Trump managed to save face personally, as he could later claim that they are paying their way by looting Syria’s oil.
Soon after the announcement that US troops would be withdrawn from Syria, Trump also directed the Pentagon to halve the number of US troops in Afghanistan, another decision that appeared to have been made unilaterally by the president. The corporate media and prominent Establishment politicians and pundits immediately responded:
“On this issue…there is more continuity between Trump and Obama than would make either administration comfortable,” Richard N. Haas, president of The Council on Foreign Relations, told The New York Times in an article headlined “A Strategy of Retreat in Syria, with Echoes of Obama.” The next day, The Hill repeated the sentiment in an article whose headline holds nothing back: “Trump’s Middle East Policy Looks a lot Like Obama’s – That’s not a Good Thing.” Even Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), whose support for Trump is matched only by his disdain for Obama’s Middle East policy, called Trump’s plan ‘an Obama-like mistake.’” LINK
Consequently, while there has been an effort to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan in the lead-up to the US elections scheduled to be held later this year, there they remain, no vital strategic goals and objectives defined and no departure date set, to be reduced to ‘only’ 5,000 soldiers apparently (plus the usual unspecified number of ‘contractors’) to guard over US Establishment interests and objectives. They certainly aren’t there to safeguard the interests of the American people, much less those of the people of Afghanistan.
One analyst explained the paradoxical comments condemning the supposed similarity between the foreign policies of Obama and Trump in the Middle East as follows:
“While both presidents have advocated decreasing America’s footprint in the region, their policies are comparable only on the most superficial level. Obama and Trump have taken contrasting approaches to the Afghanistan war, America’s longest. Both favoured troop withdrawal – but with different intentions. In June 2011, Obama announced a multi-year timetable for a withdrawal, after an initial surge. His goal was to let the Afghan government know that the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan was not open-ended. The Afghans had to get their house in order, then take over the fight before the U.S. left for good. It was, in effect, an announcement of the ‘Afghanistanization’ of the war, similar in intent to Richard Nixon’s policy of ‘Vietnamization.’ In 1969, Nixon proposed replacing U.S. combat troops with South Vietnamese troops in order to extricate the United States from a seemingly endless war. This was Obama’s goal in Afghanistan as well. By the end of his second term, however, circumstances there persuaded him to slow the withdrawal. When Trump announced his policy toward Afghanistan during the first year of his presidency, he mocked Obama’s plan. According to Trump, “Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on.” And instead of ‘Afghanistanization’, Trump originally supported increasing the use of force to compel the Taliban, whom the U.S. and its allies are fighting in Afghanistan, to come to the bargaining table. The Taliban had other ideas. Rather than being backed into a corner, the Taliban recently made battlefield gains and is defying U.S. efforts to negotiate a settlement. It was in this context that Trump decided that ‘conditions on the ground’ were ripe for a partial U.S. withdrawal… Obama’s Afghanistan policy was part of a broader approach his administration took toward the Middle East… Unlike Obama, Trump does not have a Middle East strategy, grand or otherwise. He has impulses…” LINK
In the broader regional context, Obama believed that the United States had expended far too much blood and treasure in the Middle East under his predecessor, George W. Bush. For Obama, the region’s many intractable conflicts and problems made it more trouble than it was worth. Reinforced by the rapidly growing geopolitical and economic might of China across the Pacific, one of his primary goals was to get the United States out of the Middle East and into Asia.
Therefore Obama sought to reduce tensions in the Middle East, and shift the burden of ‘policing’ the region to Israel, the Saudis and others, as the United States had done during the Cold War. In line with the aim of withdrawing US forces from the Middle East and initiating the ‘pivot to Asia’, the Obama administration forged an international Iran nuclear deal and tried to restart negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
However, the chaos created by the Arab uprisings and colour revolutions of 2010-11, and the resistance of US allies in the region to what they believed was US disengagement and neglect, prevented Obama from achieving many of these goals.
Unlike Obama, Trump does not appear to have a cohesive Middle East strategy, and most of his decisions are not based on a deep analysis of events in the region and the needs and interests of the countries and people there. In the Trump administration, there are only two sets of interests that count, and they count above everything else: the interests of the US (as perceived and interpreted by the Trump administration), and Israel.
If there is one country on Earth that equals Trump’s contempt for international law and the US Establishment’s addiction to permanent war it is Israel, which has enjoyed the protection of the US veto as its own since the day it was created (the main exception being during the Suez Crisis). Another common factor in the specific case of Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is their billionaire benefactor Sheldon Adelson, who has particularly close ties with both and has provided vast sums to smooth their way to power and keep them there. LINK1, LINK2
Yet the ties between the two go further:
“Trump’s affinity for Netanyahu is also probably enhanced by the PM’s relationship with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, which goes way back. Kushner’s father appeared alongside Sheldon Adelson and Ron Lauder on a list of potential donors Netanyahu compiled in 2007. On a trip Netanyahu took to the US before he became PM, he stayed as a guest at the Kushner home, sleeping in Jared’s bed while Jared, a teenager at the time, bunked in the basement. Netanyahu visited Jared’s father Charles at his office and played soccer at one of the Jewish day schools bearing the Kushner family name with Joshua Kushner, Jared’s younger brother.” LINK
Thus bilateral US-Israel relations and cooperation on the international scene to achieve common objectives were set to reach unprecedented levels. Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of economic and military benefits Israel has received over the last four years was merely part of the built-in financial, military, technological and diplomatic largesse that the US bestows on Israel year after year, jealously protected by a bipartisan chorus that very few members of the US Congress can resist. The twenty-six standing ovations Netanyahu received for his mediocre address before the US Congress in 2015 should be sufficient testimony on this point.
The power of the Israel lobby in US politics and corporate media was also put on display on another rare occasion that a US president infringed upon one of the lobby’s sacred cows when George Bush (Snr) threatened to withhold US aid to Israel should Israeli President Chaim Herzog not cease the construction of new settlements in the West Bank. After determined lobbying of the US Congress by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in particular, accompanied by a withering corporate media backlash, Bush stated that he was: “one lonely little guy, up against some powerful political forces made up of a thousand lobbyists on the Hill.” His remarks identifying AIPAC as one of the main protagonists behind the lobbying campaign sparked another barrage of criticism for which Bush later apologized, agreeing to send Israel its grants in foreign aid irrespective of the policies and conduct of the Israeli government and whether they are compatible with the interests of the people of the US.
In 2007, George Bush (Jnr) signed an agreement with Israel promising to provide $30 billion in US military aid to Israel for a 10 year period. Barack Obama also duly signed a deal guaranteeing 38 billion dollars in aid to Israel. While the Obama administration generally maintained the US’ favourable posture towards Israel, it declined to back some of the Israeli leadership’s more insistent and reckless demands, foremost among which was that the US isolate, demonize and ultimately attack Iran. Indeed, Obama went one step further and ended the staged confrontation over Iran’s nuclear energy program by signing the JCPOA along with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, successfully quashing a dangerous flashpoint – for a while, at least.
One of Obama’s final major decisions as president, to not veto a Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s annexation of Palestinian territory and the construction of Israeli settlements on territory occupied in the aftermath of the 1967 war, earned him the wrath of ‘the lobby’ and a public flaying in the corporate media, typical of the political excommunication of those that waver even the slightest in placing the interests of Israel above all others, including those of the US. A prominent hit piece in the Washington Examiner, “Obama’s disgraceful and harmful legacy on Israel”, gives just a small taste of the barrage of wailing and gnashing of teeth that followed:
“For all eight years of the Obama administration, Democrats have made believe that Barack Obama is a firm and enthusiastic supporter and defender of the Jewish state. Arguments to the contrary were not only dismissed but angrily denounced as the products of nothing more than vicious partisanship. Obama’s defenders repeatedly used the trope that “Israel should not be a partisan issue”… All of those arguments have been ground into dust by Obama’s action Friday allowing a nasty and harmful anti-Israel resolution to pass the United Nations Security Council. Just weeks before leaving office, he could not resist the opportunity to take one more swipe at Israel—and to do real harm. So he will leave with his record on Israel in ruins, and he will leave Democrats even worse off… Today’s anti-Israel action will further damage the Democratic party, by driving some Jews if not toward the Republicans then at least away from the Democrats and toward neutrality. Donald Trump’s clear statement on Thursday that he favored a veto, Netanyahu’s fervent pleas for one, and the Egyptian action in postponing the vote show where Obama stood: not with Israel, not even with Egypt, but with the Palestinians. Pleas for a veto from Democrats in Congress were ignored by the White House. Does the resolution matter? It does. The text declares that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law”… The text demands “that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem”… The resolution also “calls upon all States, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.” This is a call to boycott products of the Golan, the West Bank, and parts of Jerusalem, and support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement. Yet Barack Obama thought this was all fine and refused to veto. Settlements have been an obsession for Obama since the second day of his term in office, January 22, 2009. That day he appointed George Mitchell to be his special peace envoy, and adopted the view that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the key to peace in the entire region and that freezing construction in settlements was the key to Israeli-Palestinian peace…” LINK
Another corporate media outlet complained:
“When speaking with Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy bewailed Israel’s PM saying, “I can’t stand Netanyahu; he is a coward and a liar.” Rather than defend Netanyahu, Obama replied, “You can’t stand him? I have to deal with him more than you.” LINK
A report by The Guardian provides another perspective on the Obama administration’s relations with Israel and policies on the Israel-Palestine question:
“That Obama detests Netanyahu is common knowledge. What is less well known is that Obama’s personal antipathy towards the prime minister co-exists with a genuine commitment to the welfare and security of the Jewish state. Obama’s actual record over his eight years in office makes him one of the most pro-Israeli American presidents since Harry S Truman. Obama has given Israel considerably more money and arms than any of his predecessors. He has fully lived up to America’s formal commitment to preserve Israel’s ‘qualitative military edge’ by supplying his ally with ever more sophisticated weapons systems. His parting gift to Israel was a staggering military aid package of $38bn for the next 10 years. This represents an increase from the current $3.1 to $3.8bn per annum. It is also the largest military aid package from one country to another in the annals of human history.” LINK
One of the major shifts that has occurred in the bedrock of geopolitics in the Middle East is the relations between the Gulf States, particularly the Saudis and the UAE, and Israel. While the respective parties are still reticent to openly acknowledge the extent to which their interests and objectives are aligned and the nature of their collaboration, the fact that such alignment can now be openly discussed is in itself a paradigm shift. This has already become a part of the ‘new normal’ under the Trump administration.
“Muhammad bin Zayed, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, and Muhammad bin Salman (MBS), Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, believed the Gulf states and Israel shared a common enemy: Iran. In May 2017, Trump and his team met with Arab leaders in Riyadh, and Kushner and MBS agreed on the outlines of a Middle East strategic alliance. Israel would remain a ‘silent partner’, at least for now. The US committed to taking a harder line on Iran, and the Gulf Arabs promised to help get the Palestinians to go along with the new program. In May 2009, Netanyahu had tried to get Obama and his team to assist in easing Israel’s isolation in the region. He asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to convince Gulf leaders to meet with him publicly to demonstrate a normalization of relations to the peoples of the Middle East. Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz refused to meet an Israeli leader, and American officials were skeptical for years of Israel’s claims that it was possible for it to expand ties with the Gulf States.” LINK
The differences between the Obama and Trump administrations on their policies towards Israel and the Middle East more generally, despite the above-mentioned continuities, is also clearly demonstrated with respect to the latter point mentioned in the report by the Washington Examiner quoted above, the cornerstone issue of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory and a broader Israel-Palestine peace agreement. The article in the Guardian argued in this respect:
“Netanyahu has always believed what the Likud’s electoral platform continues to state explicitly: there can be no independent Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. He is a reactionary politician whose overriding aim is to preserve the status quo with Israel as a regional superpower, ruling over millions of disenfranchised Palestinians in what he and his colleagues insist on calling Judea and Samaria. Netanyahu presides over the most rightwing, jingoistic, pro-settler, and overtly racist coalition government in Israel’s history. He and his government are addicted to occupation – the root of all evil. In the teeth of almost universal condemnation, they continue to expand the Jewish settlements on the West Bank, thereby deliberately destroying the basis for a viable and territorially contiguous Palestinian state. Area C, where most of these settlements are located, comprises 60% of the West Bank. Several ministers, led by the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home party, advocate outright annexation of this area. A cabinet majority is pushing for a new law that would ‘legalize’ the illegal Jewish outposts on the West Bank – illegal even by Israeli standards because they were built on private Palestinian land. This law, if passed by the Knesset, as seems very likely, will translate the ongoing practice of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine into official state policy… The Israeli hawks cannot wait for Donald Trump to enter the White House because he is a strong supporter not only of Israel itself but of the illegal settler movement. They believe he would give them a free pass to annex the rural parts of the West Bank and they hope that he will act on his promise to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem ̶ a move that would drive a stake through the two-state solution…” LINK
Indeed, the US Embassy is now located in Jerusalem.
An article posted by the Besa Foundation provides a very different interpretation of the topic of illegal Israeli settlements and the ‘peace process’ in its summation of the Trump administration’s proposal to resolve the Israel-Palestine question, the ‘Deal of the Century’ drafted pursuant to the directives of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
“To achieve harmony and actually solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Trump, with Kushner, unveiled a $50 billion Palestinian investment and infrastructure proposal dubbed the ‘Deal of the Century’ The plan is designed to create at least a million new jobs for Palestinians. It proposes projects worth $27.5 billion in the West Bank and Gaza and $9.1 billion, $7.4 billion, and $6.3 billion for Palestinians in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, respectively. The projects envisioned are in the healthcare, education, power, water, high-tech, tourism, and agriculture sectors. (Needless to say, the Palestinian leadership rejected the plan before even seeing it.) One of the most significant differences between the Obama and Trump administrations is their approach to, and understanding of, the Palestinian question. Obama felt the best approach was to beat up on Israel and give the Palestinians everything. Trump, by contrast, wants the Palestinians to understand that their stock is declining. The goal is to get the Palestinian leadership to accept more realistic proposals.” LINK
The ‘more realistic proposals’ require them to surrender all aspirations to a Palestinian State and most of their territory, to live in a few scattered enclaves surrounded and guarded by Israeli security forces.
As noted previously, in stark contrast to relations with Israel, Trumps decisions and policies with respect to other countries in the region, including other allies for which the US has traditionally offered unwavering support, have been opportunistic, patronising and condescending if not downright insulting, and always based on the fundamental principle of ‘America (and Israel) first’. The relations between the Saudis and the Trump administration are illustrative in this respect, as they have concluded massive weapons deals and the US has continued to support the Saudi’s and UAE’s genocidal war against Yemen even as Trump has twittered that the Saudi regime is inherently unviable and would immediately collapse without the military and other hardware that the US provides as well as the technical expertise required to operate it.
The relations between the Trump administration and other countries with ‘autocratic’ regimes in the region have been similar, in effect a necessary business arrangement to be concluded amidst effusive expressions of friendship despite the mutual dislike, if not contempt, that exists between the respective parties. For example, Trump’s casting aside of all diplomatic niceties (not to mention pretences and charades) at a function attended by US and Egyptian officials:
“During a reception at the Hotel du Palais in Biarritz, France, at the recent G7 summit, President Donald Trump was looking for Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi and called out, ‘Where’s my favorite dictator?’ according to the Wall Street Journal, citing several people who were in the room at the time. According to the witnesses, Trump appeared to be joking, but, the Journal said, “his question was met by a stunned silence.” LINK
Thus although Trump’s conduct of foreign policy has been spontaneous, erratic and opportunistic, his support for Israel has been consistent and absolute. This may be due in part to his benefactor Sheldon Adelson’s influence, but on many related matters their positions were probably not that far apart to begin with even if the finer details and specific decisions remained to be defined:
“Adelson gave $82m toward Trump’s and other Republican campaigns during the 2016 election cycle – more than three times the next largest individual donor, according to Open Secrets. That commitment bought him an attentive hearing from the new administration as he pushed for the appointment of Bolton as national security adviser knowing that he would be an important ally in getting the White House to kill the Iran nuclear deal. The New York Times reported that Adelson is a member of a ‘shadow National Security Council’ advising Bolton. The day after Trump announced that the US was pulling out of the Iran agreement, Adelson was reported to have held a private meeting at the White House with the president, Bolton and Vice-President Mike Pence.” LINK
While it has always been unpredictable and subject to abrupt tectonic shifts in the external environment, the future course of relations between the US, Israel and the Middle East once again is located on the threshold of a major juncture with the presidential elections scheduled to be held in a few months and turmoil peaking throughout the Middle East region, most recently with the catastrophic accident or attack that has devastated Lebanon. Whether Trump or Biden win the elections, or whether they are held at all, is unlikely to significantly affect the Establishment dogma of the primacy bestowed upon Israel in the conduct of US foreign policy.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-08-14--Turkish-Affiliated Commander Was Targeted By Unidentified Suicide Drone In Syria’s Afrin (Photos)

On August 14 in the morning , a suicide drone struck the house of a Turkish-affiliated commander in the town of Kafr Janah in the occupied area of Afrin in northern Syria .
The identity of the targeted commander was not revealed .
However , local sources said he was a member of the Ahrar al-Sham Movement , a part of the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army ( SNA ) .
The commander survived the attack , which caused minimum material damage to the house .
The unidentified suicide drone was made of styrofoam and polymer .
An electricity motor was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sources of the SNA denied that the drone had targeted a commander , saying a technical issue was behind the crash .
The sources claimed that the drone was operated by Kurdish forces , which are present in southern Afrin .
Kurdish forces used quadrocopter drones armed with small projectiles in previous attacks on Turkish forces in Afrin .
However , suicide drones have never been spotted in service with them .
The new drone attack indicates that Kurdish forces in southern Afrin are developing their offensive capabilities .
This will pose a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its proxies .
MORE ON THIS TOPIC :

Support SouthFront
On August 14 in the morning, a suicide drone struck the house of a Turkish-affiliated commander in the town of Kafr Janah in the occupied area of Afrin in northern Syria.
The identity of the targeted commander was not revealed. However, local sources said he was a member of the Ahrar al-Sham Movement, a part of the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA). The commander survived the attack, which caused minimum material damage to the house.
The unidentified suicide drone was made of styrofoam and polymer. An electricity motor was used to propel the DIY drone.
Sources of the SNA denied that the drone had targeted a commander, saying a technical issue was behind the crash. The sources claimed that the drone was operated by Kurdish forces, which are present in southern Afrin.
Kurdish forces used quadrocopter drones armed with small projectiles in previous attacks on Turkish forces in Afrin. However, suicide drones have never been spotted in service with them.
The new drone attack indicates that Kurdish forces in southern Afrin are developing their offensive capabilities. This will pose a serious threat to the Turkish military and its proxies.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-08-14--Map Update: Recent ISIS Attacks In Mozambique

Click to see the full-size image A brief overview of the recent developments in Mozambique : • On August 11 @ @ @ @ @ port in the town of Mocimboa da Praia ; • ISIS forces took control of @ @ @ @ @ port ; • ISIS attack at the town of Mocimboa da Praia began on August @ @ @ @ @ HSI32 boat , used by the Mozambican coast guard was reportedly destroyed by an RPG @ @ @ @ @ numerous weapons .
The Mozambican army has reportedly suffered more than 60 casualties ; MORE @ @ @ @ @ ISIS Captured Port City In Mozambique Just Days After Capturing Two Military Bases • ISIS @ @ @ @ @ s Cabo Delgado , Killing Dozens In Large Attack

Support SouthFront
A brief overview of the recent developments in Mozambique:
On August 11, ISIS militants captured a port in the town of Mocimboa da Praia;
ISIS forces took control of an airfield located near the port;
ISIS attack at the town of Mocimboa da Praia began on August 6;
A French-made HSI32 boat, used by the Mozambican coast guard was reportedly destroyed by an RPG;
ISIS militants seized numerous weapons. The Mozambican army has reportedly suffered more than 60 casualties;
ISIS members captured two military bases near Mocimboa da Praia.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-08-14--Chinese Oil And Infrastructure Business Diplomacy In The Middle East

While the US seeks in vain to impose its will on the region through brute pressure and force , China is expanding its influence in the Middle East through oil and infrastructure deals .
The latest deal with national oil company ADNOC provides an insight into how Beijing is increasing its presence in the offshore oil business .
Oilprice.com reports that China again figures prominently in another concession awarded in the Middle East , this time relating to the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company ( ADNOC ) .
In the aftermath of Saudi Arabia ’ s second disastrous oil price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state-owned oil firms are looking to cover substantial operational deficits .
In the absence of a sudden major spike in oil prices , economic survival in practical terms now comes down to one of two broad options .
The first is to sell off chunks of state assets in initial public offerings ( IPOs ) or stakes in ongoing oil and gas projects , which ADNOC recently did with the sale of a 49 per cent stake in its gas pipelines for just over US $ 10 billion to international investors .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to companies from countries for which the immediate economic shortfall inherent in such deals pales into insignificance compared to the longer-term geopolitical and financial advantages .
While the Western countries ’ oil majors are preoccupied with their own financial and operational difficulties after an extremely troubled year , and Russia is preoccupied with consolidating the development of its own oil and gas fields , China is particularly well-placed to take advantage of the financial straits afflicting state-owned oil companies and governments in the Middle East .
In the latest example , ADNOC has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its Lower Zakum , and Umm Shaif and Nasr offshore concessions from the existing holding of the China National Petroleum Corporation ( CNPC ) to China National Offshore Oil Corporation ’ s ( CNOOC ) subsidiary , CNOOC Limited .
This will be done by CNOOC acquiring a 40 per cent interest in CNPC ’ s majority-owned subsidiary PetroChina Investment Overseas ( Middle East ) Ltd ( PetroChina ) through its holding company , CNOOC Hong Kong Holding Limited ( CNOOC HK ) .
After the proposal has been approved by Abu Dhabi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) – which is merely a formality – CNOOC will join the principal operating consortium in the Lower Zakum concession .
The consortium is the epitome of business triumphing over geopolitics , as it also comprises ONGC Videsh ( 10 per cent stake ) from China ’ s fierce rival India , as well as INPEX Corporation ( 10 per cent ) from another fierce rival ( Japan ) , along with China ’ s CNPC ( 6 per cent ) , Italy ’ s Eni ( 5 per cent ) , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent ) .
CNOOC will also join the principal operating consortium in the Umm Shaif and Nasr concession , comprising Total ( 20 per cent ) , Eni ( 10 per cent ) , and CNPC ( 6 percent ) .
ADNOC will retain a 60 per cent majority ownership interest in both concessions .
Significantly , aside from the systematic expansion of China into the Middle East , in line with its multi-generational ‘ One Belt , One Road ’ programme , this deal marks the first time a dedicated Chinese offshore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any ADNOC concession .
In this context , this latest deal follows the signing on 22 July 2019 of a comprehensive framework agreement between ADNOC and CNOOC to ‘ explore new opportunities for collaboration ’ in the upstream , midstream , and downstream oil sectors as well as in liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) .
Described at the time by ADNOC chief executive officer , Ahmed Al Jaber as “ far-reaching ” , the deal is such a significant move by China into the core oil and gas interests of one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Middle East – the UAE – that the deal signing ceremony was attended in person by China ’ s President , Xi Jinping .
Although couched in the usual platitudes expected in such deals , even the official guidance on its contents highlighted its vast scope and scale .
Also according to the July 2019 agreement , ADNOC and CNOOC will jointly explore LNG sales and purchase opportunities , share knowledge and expertise in LNG markets , and evaluate partnerships and joint investment opportunities in the LNG value chain .
Finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two companies will collaborate in new integrated refining and petrochemical assets in China , co-operate in CNOOC ’ s refining assets , and jointly partner and invest in the refining and petrochemical value chain .
The investment is just part of an overall push by China to invest US $ 45 billion in downstream activities in the UAE .
The frenetic world of business deals may have achieved another milestone while the fractious world of politics remains stuck in a morass of mutually destructive accusations , threats and posturing .
MORE ON THE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil production cuts under OPEC deal

Support SouthFront
While the US seeks in vain to impose its will on the region through brute pressure and force, China is expanding its influence in the Middle East through oil and infrastructure deals. The latest deal with national oil company ADNOC provides an insight into how Beijing is increasing its presence in the offshore oil business.
Oilprice.com reports that China again figures prominently in another concession awarded in the Middle East, this time relating to the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC). In the aftermath of Saudi Arabia’s second disastrous oil price war, virtually all major Middle Eastern state-owned oil firms are looking to cover substantial operational deficits.
In the absence of a sudden major spike in oil prices, economic survival in practical terms now comes down to one of two broad options. The first is to sell off chunks of state assets in initial public offerings (IPOs) or stakes in ongoing oil and gas projects, which ADNOC recently did with the sale of a 49 per cent stake in its gas pipelines for just over US$10 billion to international investors. The second is to sell-off the same assets to companies from countries for which the immediate economic shortfall inherent in such deals pales into insignificance compared to the longer-term geopolitical and financial advantages. While the Western countries’ oil majors are preoccupied with their own financial and operational difficulties after an extremely troubled year, and Russia is preoccupied with consolidating the development of its own oil and gas fields, China is particularly well-placed to take advantage of the financial straits afflicting state-owned oil companies and governments in the Middle East.
In the latest example, ADNOC has announced the transfer of ownership rights in its Lower Zakum, and Umm Shaif and Nasr offshore concessions from the existing holding of the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) to China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s (CNOOC) subsidiary, CNOOC Limited. This will be done by CNOOC acquiring a 40 per cent interest in CNPC’s majority-owned subsidiary PetroChina Investment Overseas (Middle East) Ltd (PetroChina) through its holding company, CNOOC Hong Kong Holding Limited (CNOOC HK).
After the proposal has been approved by Abu Dhabi’s Supreme Petroleum Council (SPC) – which is merely a formality – CNOOC will join the principal operating consortium in the Lower Zakum concession. The consortium is the epitome of business triumphing over geopolitics, as it also comprises ONGC Videsh (10 per cent stake) from China’s fierce rival India, as well as INPEX Corporation (10 per cent) from another fierce rival (Japan), along with China’s CNPC (6 per cent), Italy’s Eni (5 per cent), and France’s Total (5 per cent).
CNOOC will also join the principal operating consortium in the Umm Shaif and Nasr concession, comprising Total (20 per cent), Eni (10 per cent), and CNPC (6 percent). ADNOC will retain a 60 per cent majority ownership interest in both concessions.
Significantly, aside from the systematic expansion of China into the Middle East, in line with its multi-generational ‘One Belt, One Road’ programme, this deal marks the first time a dedicated Chinese offshore oil and gas company has joined in any ADNOC concession.
In this context, this latest deal follows the signing on 22 July 2019 of a comprehensive framework agreement between ADNOC and CNOOC to ‘explore new opportunities for collaboration’ in the upstream, midstream, and downstream oil sectors as well as in liquefied natural gas (LNG). Described at the time by ADNOC chief executive officer, Ahmed Al Jaber as “far-reaching”, the deal is such a significant move by China into the core oil and gas interests of one of the US’ few remaining vocal allies in the Middle East – the UAE – that the deal signing ceremony was attended in person by China’s President, Xi Jinping. Although couched in the usual platitudes expected in such deals, even the official guidance on its contents highlighted its vast scope and scale.
ADNOC and CNOOC, according to the official published notes on the agreement, will ‘share knowledge, best practices and technologies in ultra-sour gas development to improve operational efficiency in gas processing and treatment, deliver efficiency, performance and reliability for drilling operations and develop field and reservoir development plans’. As an adjunct to this, China’s Offshore Oil Engineering Company (COOEC) would be in prime position for associated engineering, procurement and construction opportunities, as would China Oilfield Services Ltd (COSL) for the supply of oilfield services and to explore collaboration opportunities in offshore oil and gas field assets in Abu Dhabi.
Also according to the July 2019 agreement, ADNOC and CNOOC will jointly explore LNG sales and purchase opportunities, share knowledge and expertise in LNG markets, and evaluate partnerships and joint investment opportunities in the LNG value chain. Finally, in the downstream sector, the two companies will collaborate in new integrated refining and petrochemical assets in China, co-operate in CNOOC’s refining assets, and jointly partner and invest in the refining and petrochemical value chain. The investment is just part of an overall push by China to invest US$45 billion in downstream activities in the UAE.
The frenetic world of business deals may have achieved another milestone while the fractious world of politics remains stuck in a morass of mutually destructive accusations, threats and posturing.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-08-14--Russia Suspends Joint Patrols With Turkey On M4 Highway In Syria’s Greater Idlib

Russia had suspended joint patrols with Turkey on the M4 highway in the northwestern Syrian region of Greater Idlib , Maria Zakharova , a spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia , revealed on August 14 .
Zakharova told reporters that the decision to suspend the joint patrols was taken due to the continued provocations by the remaining militants in Greater Idlib .
“ Terrorists have increased the number of attacks on government positions and nearby settlements and are not halting provocations in the security corridor along the M4 highway .
In this regard , joint patrols on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the TASS news agency quoted Zakharova as saying .
The spokesman added that the repeated drone attacks on Russia ’ s Hmeimim Air Base were of a “ particular concern ” for Moscow .
The attacks are launched from Greater Idlib .
Russia and Turkey agreed to implement a ceasefire in Greater Idlib and secure the M4 on March 5 .
The agreement put an end to a dangerous military confrontation .
The joint Russian-Turkish patrols on the M4 faced several challenges , most notable was the July 14 suicide attack .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the attack .
Despite some delays , two successful patrols were conducted on July 22 and August 12 .
The suspension of joint patrols indicates that Greater Idlib is heading towards a new escalation .
According to recent reports , that militants are plotting a new attack on Syrian government forces in southern Idlib .
Moscow is apparently aware of these hostile plans .
MORE ON THIS TOPIC :

Support SouthFront
Russia had suspended joint patrols with Turkey on the M4 highway in the northwestern Syrian region of Greater Idlib, Maria Zakharova, a spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, revealed on August 14.
Zakharova told reporters that the decision to suspend the joint patrols was taken due to the continued provocations by the remaining militants in Greater Idlib.
“Terrorists have increased the number of attacks on government positions and nearby settlements and are not halting provocations in the security corridor along the M4 highway. In this regard, joint patrols on the highway have been temporarily suspended,” the TASS news agency quoted Zakharova as saying.
The spokesman added that the repeated drone attacks on Russia’s Hmeimim Air Base were of a “particular concern” for Moscow. The attacks are launched from Greater Idlib.
“Achieving a lasting stabilization in the Idlib de-escalation zone is possible only if the terrorists are neutralized,” Zakharova.
Russia and Turkey agreed to implement a ceasefire in Greater Idlib and secure the M4 on March 5. The agreement put an end to a dangerous military confrontation.
The joint Russian-Turkish patrols on the M4 faced several challenges, most notable was the July 14 suicide attack. Three Russian service members were injured in the attack. Despite some delays, two successful patrols were conducted on July 22 and August 12.
The suspension of joint patrols indicates that Greater Idlib is heading towards a new escalation. According to recent reports, that militants are plotting a new attack on Syrian government forces in southern Idlib. Moscow is apparently aware of these hostile plans.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-08-14--Help SouthFront To Fight Back US State Department & Co

SouthFront is facing an increasing agressive censorship and pressure campaign from Euro-Atlantic structures and global corporations .
Over the past months , YouTube and Facebook have contributed extensive efforts to suppress SouthFront work on these platforms .
( LINK , LINK ) Just recently , the US Department of State released an official report calling SouthFront a “ pillar ” of “ Russia ’ s disinformation and propaganda ” simultaneously asking millions of dollars to fight SouthFront .
The requested FY 2021 budget of the US Department of Satate ’ s Global Engagement Center , tasked with preparing fairy tales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is $ 138 million .
This is $ 11,500,000 per month .
At the same time , SouthFront ’ s monthly donation duget needed to continue our work is merely $ 5,000 .
While Euro-Atlantic structures remain scared by mighty SouthFront , our team continues its struggle to keep SouthFront alive and continue its work and further .
Since August 1 , we ’ ve collected $ 1,162 .
This is about 23 % of the needed monthly budget .
If SouthFront is not able to collect the needed amount , our work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ danger .
We urgently need your help .
Donate via VISA , PayPal , Paysafecard , Bitcoin and other options .
This systems accepts all types of cards , PayPal , Amazon Payments , bitcoin ( FAQ is under the main text , in P.S . )
You can subscribe for a monthly donation of $ 15 ( or any another amount ) OR make one time donation by clicking buttons below

Support SouthFront
DEAR FRIENDS,
SouthFront is facing an increasing agressive censorship and pressure campaign from Euro-Atlantic structures and global corporations.
Over the past months, YouTube and Facebook have contributed extensive efforts to suppress SouthFront work on these platforms. (LINK, LINK) Just recently, the US Department of State released an official report calling SouthFront a “pillar” of “Russia’s disinformation and propaganda” simultaneously asking millions of dollars to fight SouthFront. The requested FY 2021 budget of the US Department of Satate’s Global Engagement Center, tasked with preparing fairy tales and justifying the censorship of SouthFront, is $138 million. This is $11,500,000 per month. At the same time, SouthFront’s monthly donation budget needed to continue our work is merely $5,000.
While Euro-Atlantic structures remain scared by mighty SouthFront, our team continues its struggle to keep SouthFront alive and continue its work and further.
Since August 1, we’ve collected $1,662. This is about 33% of the needed monthly budget. If SouthFront is not able to collect the needed amount, our work next month will be in a grave danger. We urgently need your help.
SUPPORT THE RESISTANCE:
PayPal
Account: southfront@list.ru
DonationAlerts
Donate via VISA, PayPal, Paysafecard, Bitcoin and other options.
Tinypass (Piano)
This systems accepts all types of cards, PayPal, Amazon Payments, bitcoin (FAQ is under the main text, in P.S.)
You can subscribe for a monthly donation of $15 (or any another amount) OR make one time donation by clicking buttons below
Patreon
Donate via SouthFront’s Patreon account (click here)
SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence Team
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-08-14--Liwa al-Quds Successfully Completed A New Combing Operation In Syria’s Hama (Video)

Liwa al-Quds , a Palestinian armed group backing the Damascus government , announced on August 13 that its units had @ @ @ @ @ in the eastern Hama countryside .
The operation targeted ISIS cells and hideouts in the @ @ @ @ @ al-San .
The terrorist group has carried out several attacks in the region over the @ @ @ @ @ al-Quds fighters secured the villages of al-Shakusiyah , Murijib al-Jumlan , Abu Lif , al-Nufilah @ @ @ @ @ Abyad .
In the course of the operation , Liwa al-Quds freed three civilians , @ @ @ @ @ son and his grandson , from ISIS terrorists who abducted them a week earlier .
@ @ @ @ @ material and human losses on ISIS cells in the outskirts of al-San , according to @ @ @ @ @ are sneaking into the eastern Hama countryside from the Homs desert .
Hundreds of the @ @ @ @ @ fighters are harbouring in the desert .
The terrorists are reportedly receiving support from U.S.-backed @ @ @ @ @ area of al-Tanaf .
MORE ON THIS TOPIC :

Support SouthFront
Liwa al-Quds, a Palestinian armed group backing the Damascus government, announced on August 13 that its units had completed a new combing operation in the eastern Hama countryside.
The operation targeted ISIS cells and hideouts in the outskirts of the town of al-San. The terrorist group has carried out several attacks in the region over the last few months.
Liwa al-Quds fighters secured the villages of al-Shakusiyah, Murijib al-Jumlan, Abu Lif, al-Nufilah, al-Shuhatiyah al-Fuqaniyah and Jub Abyad.
In the course of the operation, Liwa al-Quds freed three civilians, an elderly man, his son and his grandson, from ISIS terrorists who abducted them a week earlier.
The combing operation inflicted serious material and human losses on ISIS cells in the outskirts of al-San, according to Liwa al-Quds.
ISIS terrorists are sneaking into the eastern Hama countryside from the Homs desert. Hundreds of the group’s commanders and fighters are harbouring in the desert. The terrorists are reportedly receiving support from U.S.-backed fighters based in the southeastern area of al-Tanaf.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC:
Support SouthFront