kralcleahcim

Not even a question, just wanted to say holy shit, that's amazing.

I'm assuming you mean why Russia and China would side with Assad over liberation efforts.

Regarding Russia, their support is extremely multifaceted and diplomatically understandable (taking yourself outside of the U.S. perspective). It seems to boil down to three reasons: economics, military, ideology. I'll bold the points to highlight the important factors form what I've researched.

Economically, Syria is Russia's remaining account in the region for billions in arms sales. Within the last few years, they've lost upwards of $20b in arms contracting after U.N./global sanctions against Iran in their dealings and Libya after its liberation. Russia will obviously want to continue arming Assad and his forces to fulfill the contract (it's not nearly as high as what Iran and Russia had agreed with but we are talking a few billion dollars here).

Militarily, Tartus (Syria) is the home of Russia's lone naval facility on the Mediterranean. Suffice to say, they will not want to be forced out, especially after they've pumped a lot of money and effort in restoring it and improving it. I guess you could add the arms sales into this category as it strengthens the defense budget, but Tartus is much more important.

Ideologically, this is quickly becoming a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia, and a continuation of a more anti-Western political front, especially in terms of intervention. You wouldn't want to lose an regional influence like Syria if you are Russia, it's an ally. But more, importantly, it's a chess piece against the United States, a viable political pawn of sorts. It's no coincidence that they were among the first to come out and question media reports of CW use because of the potential for a Western response.

As for China, their approach doesn't seem as hard-lined as Russia and seems really based on a policy of non-intervention than anything militarily influenced. They've supported U.N. investigation efforts, but their veto is really based on a 'hands off' policy. I haven't been keeping tabs on their statements, but that seems to be their position by all accounts I've seen.

One particular review of your memoir pointed out that your book quickly became seen as a form of "political journalism," especially within the Jewish-American community. Are you comfortable with your work being classified as such?

It seems that maybe some have confused the book's intense personal realizations of the overlooked human involvement in a conflict as tense as the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic as a 'political statement'.

Awesome! But, I just hope that you won't continue to think that authoring the book as an attempt to heal was wholly selfish, and if you do you can always take comfort in the fact that its product is entirely selfless. In recounting your experience, your memoir and the messages that your readers will take from it will benefit each of them in understanding the harsh, overlooked human reality of deadly conflict in the world... making families like the one you bravely met human again. And that extends beyond the borders of Israel and Palestine.

That train of thought seems to be the basis of the position for a strike, and the statement he made seems to be out of a rational fear for an escalation of CW or worse. I think it's understandable, but at this point unlikely for him to 'use chemical weaponry in the open', especially after the microscope falling on his use of them; it will certainly give Assad (and his supporters/allied states) confidence if the U.S. does not strike, but like OP highlighted earlier, his primary concern at this point in the war seems to be keeping Damascus out of reach for liberation.