The editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) have the gall
to call the peace talks on Syria
phony a day after they started. They do so while at the same time promising the
world that peace will come to occupied Palestine
if we just give the peace talks there a chance to succeed. After all, it's only
been half a century of occupation and a quarter century of failed peace talks –
give or take...
That WSJ logic is in full display in the piece that the
editors wrote under the title: “Syria 's
Phony Peace Talks” and the subtitle: “Assad bombs with impunity while Islamic
State gains ground.” It was published on February 1, 2016 in the Journal. In
fact, that title and the subtitle that follows it encapsulate a logic that's
out of the sewer.
What those editors are incapable of grasping is that the
peace talks are necessary; and were called for precisely because there is an
ongoing war that must be stopped. No, say the editors, the war must continue
because Assad and the Islamic State still have the means to fight their
enemies. Maybe those editors do not realize they are advocating the
continuation of the war till one side in the fight or all of them have been
obliterated … or maybe they do realize it, and that's just what they want.
Talking about Bashar Assad, they lament: “The regime has
scored recent battlefield victories.” Talking about the Islamic State (ISIS),
they lament that it has launched: “a fresh offensive in eastern Syria to consolidate control of the Euphrates River Valley Aleppo , once Syria 's
commercial capital.”
For all these reasons, say the editors of the Wall Street
Journal, we must ask the question: “Why hold the talks at all?” And they answer
their own question. Guess what it is. Here is something that should disgust you
enough to fill you with rage and churn your stomach: “For President Obama, the
effort fulfills his pledge to renew U.S.
diplomatic efforts over Syria .”
In other words, those horrible characters are saying that
because Obama may gain something if peace came to Syria, we must end the effort
to seek peace in that region. And they do not stop here; they go on to posit:
“It also gives Hillary Clinton an opening to say on the campaign trail that Mr.
Obama is on course in Syria .”
She hasn't done it, but because the possibility for an opening is there for her
to do it, the war in Syria
must go on, they say. What a sick bunch of subhumans!
Is that all? No it's not. There is more to lament about.
Look what they say now: “The Assad regime welcomes the talks.” Wow, does he?
But why is that? Because he has bad motives, say the editors of the Journal.
Look what the motives are: “the talks offer international legitimacy [for the
regime] as well as new opportunities.” And there is more. Look here: “Russia sees the talks as a vehicle for its own
diplomatic rehabilitation even as it extends its influence in the Middle East .”
What's happening to all these people? Don't they know that
the taste for fresh human blood supersedes all those other considerations? How
can Barack, Hillary, Assad and Putin not drool when seeing rivers of blood run
in the streets? How can they not rejoice at the sight of babies drowning in the
sea while escaping the carnage in their homeland? How can they not be elated at
the thought that millions of people and their descendants will live a horrible
life for several generations?
And the editors of the Wall Street Journal justify their display
of bestiality by declaring that “less clear is how this [effort to forge peace]
helps the Syrian people.” If they don't know this by now, they do not belong on
this planet. They should seriously consider being launched into space where
they might find a planet of human-looking monsters with which they will feel
kinship, and be made to feel at home.
Finally, while admitting that “nobody can claim there's an
easy solution to what has become the greatest geopolitical disaster of the
decade,” they insist that “the tragedy for Syria is that the talks will
discredit the opposition, which is being pressured to participate in a
transitional government.” Can you believe this? There is no easy solution, they
say, but coming together in peace is the wrong solution.