The Hypocrisy of UN-Ban Ki-moon about Israel’s Attacks on Syria

 .

We bring to the attention of our readers the following news release about the Israeli attack on Syria from the United Nations. Ban Ki-moon has called ”on all sides to exercise maximum calm and restraint.” No words of condemnation were uttered against Israel’s attack on Syria and Israel is never directly referenced.

It is Israel which has attacked Syria several times now. The aggressor and the victim cannot be equated as equivalents.  In essence, Ban Ki-moon is whitewashing the Israeli attacks on Syria.  The United Nations Secretariate expects Syria to do nothing and to accept the continuous aggression and assaults from Israel, which is capitalizing on the crisis inside Syria and threatening regional security, without
making any condemnation of Israel’s actions in the United Nations.

May 5, 2012

---

UN chief calls for maximum calm and restraint after reported Israeli air strikes in Syria

UN News Centre, May 5, 2013.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is gravely concerned about reports of air strikes in Syria by the Israeli Air Force, according to a statement from his spokesperson, which stressed that the United Nations does not have details of the reported incidents nor is in a position to independently verify that they took place.

“The Secretary-General calls on all sides to exercise maximum calm and restraint, and to act with a sense of responsibility to prevent an escalation of what is already a devastating and highly dangerous conflict,” Mr. Ban’s spokesperson said in the statement.

“The Secretary-General urges respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries in the region, and adherence to all relevant Security Council resolutions,” he continued.

A series of powerful explosions rocked the outskirts of Damascus early this morning, which Syrian state television attributed to Israeli missile attacks on a Syrian military installation, according to media reports.

Mr. Ban’s spokesperson underscored that “at this time, the United Nations does not have details of the reported incidents. Nor is the United Nations in a position to independently verify what has occurred.”


Top UN officials, including Mr. Ban and his political chief, Jeffrey Feltman, have said on numerous occasions that a political solution is the only answer for long-term in the country and the region.

Since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began in March 2011, more than 70,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed and some three million displaced.

THE MILITARIZATION OF UN PEACEKEEPING: Ban Ki-moon’s Helicopter Nonsense

Who gave Ban Ki-moon this idea?

    The United Nations Security Council is expected to authorize deploying a full mission of 250 monitors to Syria after it takes up the issue Wednesday, but Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon questioned whether even that number would be sufficient.

    “I think this is not enough, considering the current situation and considering the vastness of the country, and that is why we need very efficient mobility of our observer mission,” he said Tuesday.

    He said he had discussed with European Union leaders whether the EU could provide helicopters and airplanes for that mobility.

This can not be a request for civilian helicopters as those could be rented by the UN itself. So those helicopters Ban Ki-moon is dreaming of would be military helicopters from EU countries with military pilots and NATO standard encrypted radios. The same EU countries that have put sanctions on Syria because it cracks down on an foreign paid insurgency.

This at the same times as the U.S. has pledged “communication equipment” to the insurgents in Syria. The helicopter pilots could thereby direct the insurgents around military concentrations and roadblocks towards their targets.

The Syrian government would be crazy to agree to such a scheme of transport of UN monitors. Indeed it offered its own helicopters for the monitors to use. Ban Ki-moon certainly knew that the EU helicopter scheme would be rejected when he came out with it.

This crazy idea was only offered to let it look as if the Syrian government rejects the Annan plan and hindering the monitor deployment. But for now it seems to me that the UN is the one that holding back progress. There are still only six UN monitors on the ground where thirty were supposed to be since Monday. What is up with that Mr. Ban Ki-moon?

Ban Ki-moon and Churchill’s Shadow: UN Secretary General endorses US-NATO War Propaganda
In his time then Prime Minister of Great Britain Winston Churchill proved the fact that a gap between a public politician and a public call girl could be narrowed to minimum. Winston himself often deserted one party for another watching how the wind was blowing and trusting his own feelings. He was no less consistent in foreign policy. France will always be grateful to him for its navy destruction in 1940. Britain and France were bound by a military alliance treaty, but private interests stood above all.

On June 3 1940 a British armada under the command of Admiral Sommerville neared stealthily the Algerian port of Mers-el-Kebir and bloodshed followed. Three battleships, a lot of ships of lesser size, hundreds of sailors went to the bottom. On June 6 the Richelieu, a battleship of the French Navy, was attacked and damaged in the roadstead of Dakar. As a result the French navy ceased to exist. 130 French sailors lost lives. Why? Because France signed the capitulation in Compiegne and the ships could join the German navy. The Vichy government had no intention to turn them in to Germany, it intended to sink them in the last resort but these were details. Winston took the decision.

It must be noted the operation ran smoothly. «I am very sorry», – Admiral Sommerville wired to the sinking French ships before leaving. A real gentleman.

The Russians have something to remember him for too. The Churchill’s Fulton speech – a pile of lies about the aggressiveness of the USSR – became a prologue to the “Cold war” that exhausted the Soviet economy.

The spiritual successors of Churchill appear to never leave the Western political kitchen. Their motto is – play a dirty trick and do it as elegantly as you can. That’s what brings indefatigable UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon into the focus of international observers attention more and more often. Just recently speaking at the final 2011 results wrap up press conference he surprised the audience with his eloquence praising those who bombed Libya.

The Churchill’s spirit was there in his speeches, as he turned a blind eye on NATO’s taking sides in the Libyan intestine strife. But the main thing is to preserve elegance. To smile and bow when the time is right.

Now Ban Ki-moon turned to Syria. The Winston’s shadow is behind his back again. It’s not worth to list all accusations addressed to the president of Syria president Assad, they all come from the ideological pottage boiling in the NATO’s kitchen. The main idea is that Assad is an enemy of Syrian people and the whole human kind. He should be dealt with. And elegance shouldn’t be forgotten. Not a word about an armed intervention.

At the same time the Secretary General pays no attention whatsoever on the Syrian armed opposition. Is he not the one who should make clear what its numbers are, where arms and other supplies come from etc? It’s the chimera of “Free Syrian army” and opposition’s political council that are constantly mentioned in the media. But it’s well armed formations able to counter the Syrian regular army who fight the country’s legitimate government. Why the Secretary General has no wish to know who these people are and what they want? Perhaps it’s because Mr. Rasmussen has already told him whispering in the ear? The conspiracy of silence concerning estimates of real strength of Syrian militants is an amazing mystery of Western media activities. Ban Ki-moon appears to be one of the creators of the mystery. Perhaps we will get another prove of it soon at the UN General Assembly session devoted to the situation in Syria.

The activities of the body responsible for providing the Secretary General with information on Syria raise questions too. It’s the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” in Syria, based in London – an office that has no relation whatsoever to the United Nations with funds coming from secret sources. It’s not accessible. Perhaps the “Observatory” is afraid of Syrian special services and is hidden in an area guarded by someone. And the data concocted by the guarded experts located thousands of kilometers from Syria becomes “official data of the United Nations ” by the will of Mr. Ban Ki-moon.

It’s all done in respectable and elegant way, isn’t it, gentlemen from the SIS?

What about the resignation of Mohamed al-Dhabi, head of Arab League monitoring mission in Syria? Can the story be ignored? The General resigned because his report didn’t meet the expectations of the Arab League leaders. They spared no effort to make cuts in the report and send it to the UN in truncated form. Mr. Ban Ki-moon knew well about it. Still he met the General Mohamed al-Dhabi’s resignation with usual smile.

In response to the resignation the NATO’s ideological pottage started to boil producing new information bubbles: the assignment of the Sudanese General with rich intelligence experience to the position of head of observers mission was a mistake because he was a representative of the old regime and took part in suppressing the democratic movement in Darfur.

Here is a choice – one can laugh or cry. Just recently the Western media published reports about the atrocities committed by the Darfur separatists, how could one guess then that the very same outlets would picture one of the separatism fighters as a villain.

Ban Ki-moon didn’t meet General al-Ghabi but he did hold another meeting with Mr. Rasmussen. Nice try too. The two Secretaries General have an agenda for discussions.

It may take a long time to describe the dishonorable and not very elegant policy of Ban Ki-moon. The question arises: once the UN Secretary General joined the ranks of NATO’s mercenaries what the international community would need him for?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hypocrisy-of-ban-ki-moon-on-the-israeli-attack-on-syria/5334033