تتضارب الأخبار عن حقيقة ما يجري في سوريا، ويتبادل النظام الحاكم ومعارضوه الاتّهامات في كلّ شيء، بما في ذلك من قتل من ومن هاجم من ومن اعتدى على من. لكنّ السؤال الكبير الذي لا نعرف له جوابًا شافيًا هو لماذا لا يفتح نظام بشّار الأسد المجال واسعًا أمام أجهزة الإعلام العربيّة والعالميّة لتدخل سوريا وتعمل بحريّة كاملة وتنقل الأخبار مباشرة من شوارع المدن والقرى السوريّة وميادينها وجبالها وسهولها إلى العالم أجمع؟
إلى أن يفتح النظام الحاكم في سوريا أبواب المعلومات لتنتقل بحريّة وشفافيّة من جميع أنحاء سوريا إلى العالم الخارجي، تبقى مصداقيّة ذلك النظام محلّ شك إن لم نقل أكثر من ذلك.
وثمّة سؤال ملحٍّ آخر لم يقدّم النظام الحاكم في سوريا بعد جوابًا شافيًا عنه: يطالب (بعض أبناء) الشعب السوري بالإصلاح السياسي، ويطالب (بعضهم) بتغيير النظام، ويطالب (بعضهم) بالقضاء على الفساد ومحاسبة المفسدين، ويطالب (بعضهم) بالحريّة والديمقراطيّة، إلخ، فلماذا يتعامل النظام الحاكم “أمنيًّا” مع (بعض أبناء) الشعب السوري، بغضّ النظر عن كون المطالبين بالتغيير قلّةً أو كثرة، بدلاً من الاستماع لهم والفهم الواعي لمطالبهم المشروعة والعمل الجاد على تحقيقها؟
إذا أراد النظام الحاكم في سوريا، وعلى رأسه بشّار الأسد، المحافظة على ما تبقّى له من مصداقيّة على المستويين العربي والعالمي، عليه أن يتوقّف عن التعامل الأمني مع (بعض أبناء) الشعب السوري، وأن يبدأ فورًا بالعمل الدؤوب المتسارع لتحقيق المطالب الشعبيّة بالحريّة والديمقراطيّة والعيش الكريم لجميع أبناء الشعب السوري.
منذر زمّو
أوتوا / كندا
08/06/2011
Hope is the stuff from which life is made!
Alcanaanite's Blog 
The background of the Western stand behind so-called Syrian revolution is hard to understand without a proper understanding of the recent history of the region.
Luckily, we only need to go back to 1982, the year Israel invaded Lebanon and ousted the PLO from Lebanon.
Just prior to the 1982 invasion, Israel had secured its borders with both Egypt and Jordan with peace treaties. The uneasy quiet on the Syrian front was likely to stay that way. Syria is not capable to launch a major conventional attack on Israel. That status quo gave enough security to Israel. The only thorn in Israel’s backside was the presence of the PLO in Lebanon, and in South Lebanon to be more specific.
By ousting the PLO, Israel believed that Lebanon has become a subservient country and that it was going to be able to install a puppet regime, and why would it not believe so? The PLO was driven out, the Lebanese capital was under its control, and the pro-Israeli leader of the Lebanese Forces (Bashir Gemayel) was elected to be president of Lebanon.
When Gemayel was assassinated by a member of the Syrian National Social Party (a Lebanese political party that promotes the idea of Greater Syria), Israel lost a powerful ally and a power broker. Under the presidency of his brother Amin (who was elected a few days after the assassination of Bashir), the Lebanese government was coerced to enter peace talks with Israel. A peace agreement was reached on the 17th of May 1983 but Amin Gemayel did not ratify it. He was undoubtedly worried to pay for it with his blood.
It looked however like it was a question of time before Lebanon and Israel signed a peace agreement.
During that period, the Syrian influence on Lebanese politics was reduced to almost nothing despite the continued presence of Syrian forces in the part of Lebanon that remained outside Israel’s control. The presence of Israeli forces in virtually half of Lebanon together with the later presence of American/French/Italian peace-keeping forces in Beirut, not to mention the muscle power of the US sixth fleet and its pride USS New Jersey was more than overwhelming. The very thought of resistance was unfathomable.
The situation was very desperate and virtually hopeless. How could Lebanon, the small fragmented country, rise up and defeat the many enemies within and without?
And then, from the ashes rose the Lebanese Resistance. With the support and strategic genius and tenacity of Hafez Al-Assad, the Lebanese Resistance was able to score a multitude of painful blows to the Western alliance.
To make a long story short, this culminated in an unprecedented defeat of Israel. For the first time since its infamous inception, Israel had to retreat from Lebanon. Never before had Israel given up Arab land without trading it for something of value. Israel called its retreat a strategic withdrawal. It was in fact a very humiliating defeat. This defeat of Israel was the biggest victory of Syria and Lebanon and the crown jewel of Hafez Al-Assad’s political career and greatest achievement. He lived enough to see this victory and passed away a few weeks later.
Israel’s gamble in Lebanon failed abysmally. The PLO was replaced by a much more potent and much better organized Hezbollah, and Syria was back in Lebanon in greater force.
It was probably at that time that Israel and the USA decided to escalate their plots against Syria. The young and little-experienced Basshar Al-Assad was seen as an easier target than his seasoned father. Basshar was however not scared of reform like his father was. He opened up Syria to the world and made huge steps towards political and economic reform. No doubt, more needed to be done. Basshar needed to clean up his camp and get rid of some serious cronies. This however is not the topic of this article. That said, the West needs to realize that what it perceives as a perfect political system ie democracy, does not work everywhere; needless to say that America’s biggest allies and friends in the Middle East are dictators.
When Bush was elected, he had around him the infamous circle of Neo Conservatives. These were a group of pro-Zionist fanatics. Perle, Wolfewitz and Co had one thing and one thing only in mind; to use the tenure of Bush to buy an everlasting peace for Israel.
They had their eye on their strategic enemy; Syria. Attacking Syria however was a difficult concept to sell to the world. They had to come up with a smarter plan. They had to find an enemy that the world loves to hate. They found the perfect one and the perfect excuse.
September 11 gave the infamous Bush alliance a good excuse to justify escalating the rhetoric against Saddam. Furthermore, in Iraq, the alliance found a good lure for oil-thirsty hyenas. The Neo-Cons rounded up the fanatics and Cheney rounded up the scavengers. The war against Iraq became history.
Unlike what many people think. The invasion of Iraq was not about petrol. Petrol was only the lubricant. America invaded Iraq to protect Israel.
But how does invading Iraq protect Israel even though Iraq and Israel do not share any borders?
Destabilizing Iraq and removing the threat of Saddam’s scuds was seen as good enough, but there was much more on America’s mind.
America was planning to use Iraq as a stepping stone to attack Syria and Iran.
In fact, soon after Bush’s arrogant declaration that his mission in Iraq has been accomplished, America started to accuse Syria of trouble in the border region of Iraq; just as planned. America was trying to show the world that it could not control Iraq properly unless it controlled Syria. The same was planned for Iran.
In its arrogance, the USA believed that it was mighty enough to attack and occupy Iraq, Syria and Iran.
But just like Israel got bogged down in Lebanon a decade earlier, the USA soon realized that controlling Iraq was not a possibility. Instead of turning against Syria, the USA realized that it was already in a very deep mess that it is still trying to get out of.
Syria took over one million Iraqi refugees and in doing so, it inadvertently helped the resilience of Iraq. But even without this help, the USA and Israel became increasingly at dis-ease with Syria and its growing strength in the area, especially that it signed a strategic alliance with Iran.
The Assad legacy has outsmarted the American Israeli alliance twice by then. Hezbollah has grown much stronger and its missiles reached deep into Israeli territory in 2006. Never more before did Israel and the USA want to see Assad fall.
Israel and the US are both aware that if Basshar Assad gets toppled he will most likely be replaced by Sunni fundamentalists. As a matter of fact, the USA has been sponsoring the Lebanese-based Sunni fundamentalists (Salafists) for some years. The USA and Israel are prepared to take this risk and much prefer an Al-Qaeda type regime in Syria to that of Assad.
At the end of the day, America will fight the Arab and Moslem worlds, create enemies for itself, send itself broke, bend over and backwards, just to support that illegitimate state of piracy that calls itself Israel.
The Western stand behind the uprising in Syria is not one that is aimed for reform as it alleges. America does not give a hoot about political freedom in Syria. America and Israel have a score to settle with the Assad legacy and they are capitalizing on the Arab revolt. Helped by their Saudi cronies, they are finding new recruits; the Prince of Qatar.
The Prince of Qatar is another regional dictator who is a good friend of both the USA and Israel. He hosted on Qatari soil the headquarters for the alliance of the infamous invasion of Iraq.
Al-Jazeera, his pet newsagency is using all its influence to fuel violence in Syria. For the Qatari Prince to think that his country is immune to an uprising similar to that in Bahrain is laughable to say the least.
To America and Israel, this is the time to even up the scores with Basshar Al Assad. To Basshar, it is a great moment of reckoning.
What does all of that have to do with the price of meat?
Without having to get into any argument about the many founded, as well as unfounded, assertions in your article, Israel, USA, Europe, China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah, PLO, Lebanon, the West, the East, the North, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Salafists, Shiats, Sunnis, Saad Hariri, Prince Bandar, Princess Qamar Ez-Zamaan, etc. are not the subject of discussion here. All of the above attempts to sidestep the facts, as well as much of the details of certain theories contained in your article are IRRELEVANT.
The question at hand, that deals with the credibility of the Syrian regime in how the regime treats the Syrians who demand political reform and change, is this: Why doesn’t the ruling regime in Syria allow friendly and unfriendly local, Arab, and international media outlets to enter Syria and operate freely so that the unfiltered truth about what is taking place in Syria can be revealed to all?
Prince Bandar Bin Sultan is the son of the Saudi crown prince, but he seems to run his political life on the basis of having a state within a state. He is a rogue prince, but with a flavor that suits the American agenda.
Just like America supported the rise of Bin Laden back in the eighties because his rogue nature had an anti Soviet flavor, the USA is now supporting Prince Bandar because of his anti-Iranian flavor.
Bandar is in essence a Sunni fundamentalist from the Wahhabi sub-sect. His sworn enemies are the Shiites for no reason other than sectarian prejudice.
He is terrified by the regional rise of Iran (Shiite state). Many moderates share those views, but Bandar is prepared to go to extremes in fighting the Iranian rise. He found a good ally in Saad Hariri of Lebanon. Saad Hariri accuses Syria of killing his father Rafik Hariri and is a sworn enemy of the Shiite Lebanese Hezbollah.
Bandar and his ally Saad see more danger in Hezbollah and Iran than they see in Israel. Syria, being an ally of Iran becomes then the natural enemy of Bandar and is already the personal enemy of Saad.
It is important to note that the stands of Bandar and Saad are not based on strategic political alliances and/or on principles. Rather, they are based on mere sectarian bias and fanaticism.
Saad in his turn, turns to his home-grown fanatics to do his dirty work. He has been personally responsible for funding and training two ultra fundamentalist Sunni groups in Lebanon; Fateh Al-Islam and the Salafists.
The former group (Fateh Al Islam) had to be quelled violently by the Lebanese Army in the Palestinian Al-Bared camp north of Tripoli (Lebanon’s second largest city). The battle was bitter and left the camp in total ruin. Thousands of Palestinian refugees had to be relocated. Ironically, that battle took place in 2007, at a time when the Lebanese government was headed by Fouad Seniora (a Saad Hariri man).
What is more ironic is that the USA supported the Lebanese Army to fight the very group it had helped establish. The Lebanese Army appealed to the US for assistance and America could not be seen in the international arena to refuse this, but at the same time, it was under the blessing of the USA that the Sunni fundamentalist alliance between Bandar Saad and Fateh Al Islam was forged.
Little is known about the fate of the Palestinian Shaker Al Absi the leader of that group. All that is known about him is that he is on the “wanted” list and at large. However, Dai’i Al Islam Shahhal, the Tripoli-based leader of the Salafists is Lebanese and he gets the full support and cover from Saad Hariri.
The Salafists’ main agenda item is the destruction of Shiite Islam, but they are an Al-Qaeda type organization in every respect possible. Yet, they get the blessing of the USA via the tiered Saad Hariri prince Bandar alliance.
As hard as it may be to believe, but the USA is in fact supporting a Sunni fundamentalist Al-Qaeda type organization in Lebanon.
Why would the USA do this? one may ask. The answer is very simple.
The USA ranks its enemies in reference to their threat to Israel; not to the USA itself. So while America’s biggest current enemy is Al-Qaeda, Israel’s biggest current enemy is Hezbollah.
Hezbollah gets its arms from Iran via Syria. Syria and Hezbollah are the natural enemies of Sunni fundamentalists. If weakening Syria and Hezbollah means having to forge an alliance with Al-Qaeda, then the USA will do it for as long as this serves Israel.
Whilst the USA is fighting against Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and NATO nations are losing young men and women in this war, the USA is in fact engaged in supporting a subsidiary of Al-Qaeda in Lebanon.
The Prince of Qatar is playing a big role in the anti-Syria alliance. Al-Jazeera (the prince’s pet newsagency) is fuelling the uprising in Syria.
Syria needs reform, and President Basshar embarked on the journey of reform soon after he took office. Admittedly, he did not manage to control the corrupt old guards. That said, Syria has flourished and became a haven of peace, security, and secularism.
Syria however has three groups of enemies. The Israeli American alliance is the natural enemy.
Within Syria, the fundamentalist Sunnis want to see an overthrow of the secular regime. Their slogans are to kill the Alawites (Shiite sub-sect to which president Assad belongs) and to evict the Christians to Lebanon. Those groups found a field day in the Arab uprising. Under the guise of a democratic movement, they are stirring up sectarian divisions and targeting Alawites.
Just outside the Syrian borders in Lebanon, there are many anti-Syrian Lebanese groups. It is as if the freaky USA/Al-Qaeda alliance is not weird enough, in Lebanon, the fundamentalist Sunnis (Salafists) found a good ally in the ultra rightwing Christian Lebanese fundamentalists (Lebanese Forces). What unites them is their hatred towards Syria.
If Assad falls, the USA/Israel alliance hopes to have him replaced by a fragmented and weakened Syria. This is a possibility, but that alliance fails to realize that some Syrians are now perhaps perplexed by what is happening, but once they realize the enormity of the conspiracy, they will unite under Basshar Assad or after his demise. They will not allow fragmentation.
The worst scenario for all involved, including the enemies of Syria, would be if the country falls under the rule of the Sunni fundamentalists. If this happens, Syria will suffer greatly in the short term. But the biggest loser in the short and long term, will be Israel.
Any one who cannot believe that such strange alliances can exist can go to Lebanon or Syria to find out the hard way. Any person or organization supporting the so-called Syrian revolution, believing that this would be tantamount to supporting freedom and democracy, should stop to have a second look. There is much more to this than meets the eye.
One more time…
What does all of that have to do with the price of meat?
Without having to get into any argument about the many founded, as well as unfounded, assertions in your article, Israel, USA, Europe, China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah, PLO, Lebanon, the West, the East, the North, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Salafists, Shiats, Sunnis, Saad Hariri, Prince Bandar, Princess Qamar Ez-Zamaan, etc. are not the subject of discussion here. All of the above attempts to sidestep the facts, as well as much of the details of certain theories contained in your article are IRRELEVANT.
The question at hand, that deals with the credibility of the Syrian regime in how the regime treats the Syrians who demand political reform and change, is this: Why doesn’t the ruling regime in Syria allow friendly and unfriendly local, Arab, and international media outlets to enter Syria and operate freely so that the unfiltered truth about what is taking place in Syria can be revealed to all?
Preceding two articles I have posted were written (English originals) by my friend Ghassan Kadi. Follow his posts on Facebook under same name.