Archive | August 3rd, 2012



While Syria’s doomed Assad teeters, “anti-imperialist” pretenders make their last stand

 By:Nureddin Sabir
The UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly denounced the Syrian regime’s crackdown on the people’s revolution.

The resolution, passed today by 133 in favour, with 12 against and 31 abstentions, says “the first step in the cessation of violence has to be made by the Syrian authorities”.

Before the vote, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reminded the assembly of the fresh violence in the city of Aleppo and drew comparisons between the failure to act in Syria and past genocide in Srebrenica and Rwanda.

“The acts of brutality that are being reported may constitute crimes against humanity or war crimes,” he said of the Aleppo fighting. “Such acts must be investigated and the perpetrators held to account.”

Meanwhile, a tiny but vociferous group of ultra-reactionaries and racists masquerading as “leftists” and “anti-imperialists” continues to poison and disinform on behalf of the doomed sectarian regime of Bashar Assad.

Obsessed with imaginary conspiracies, ridden by empty slogans and determined to fight their armchair pseudo-ideological battles until the last drop of Syrian and other Arab blood, these pretenders are now completely at one with the sectarian Alawite clique that has sold the Syrian Golan Heights to its soulmates in Israel.

In 1967 Bashar Assad’s father, Hafez – the butcher of Hama and Tal al-Zaatar – abandoned the Golan Heights to the Israelis without a fight. Now Bashar – the butcher of Homs, Hama, Aleppo and all of Syria – has told the Israelis they can keep the Golan in return for convincing the Americans that his regime is the best guarantor of Israel’s security on the northern border.

But no more. The Assad regime is doomed. Just as the light of day is sure to follow the darkness of night, it will fall and with it the self-styled “leftist” and “anti-imperialist” pretenders will be exposed for the ultra-reactionary fascists that they are.

The Arab people has erupted and there is no rolling back of theirintifada.

But freedom and justice have never been cheap. Along our path to liberation there will be many rivers of blood to cross and mountains of propaganda, disinformation and lies to demolish – the fossilized scum of the ultra-reactionay pretenders and their Russian, Chinese and local sectarian godfathers.

Soon Aleppo, Homs, Hama and all of Syria will be liberated.

The Syrian people will be free – free to exrcise their inalienable civil and political rights and free at last to liberate the Golan Heights from the terrorists and colonists of the Zionist entity.

And beyond Syria, progressive forces all over the world will be free to build genuine grassroots movements with justice and democracy at their core, unshackled and cleansed from Stalinists, reactionaries and fascists.


Palestinian history on a billboard versus Israeli fanaticism on the ground


By Lawrence Davidson
Lawrence Davidson pits the facts of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict – Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinian people and theft of Palestinian land, as displayed recently in a New York billboard – against the arguments of the Zionist apologists for colonization and ethnic cleansing. He argues that only the worldwide boycott, sanctions and divestment campaign has a realistic chance of changing Israeli attitudes and behaviour.

“Consistently applied outside pressure, growing in scope and strength, can … slowly but surely convince ordinary Israelis that they have a choice: go along with their expansionist leaders and face increasing international isolation or … cooperate willingly in ‘finding a formula for joint living’ – that is, creating a better society that is tolerant and mindful of the need for justice, first and foremost for Israel’s victims, the Palestinian people.” (Lawrence Davidson)

History on a billboard

For the past few weeks, those taking local trains from New York City’s wealthier suburbs into Manhattan have encountered a succinct billboard history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The lesson comes in the form of four aligned maps showing the absorption of Palestinian land by Israel from 1946 to the present, along with a declaration that “4.7 million Palestinians are classified by the UN as refugees”. In all respects, the advertisement is historically correct.

Maps showing absorption of Palestinian land by Israel since 1946, along with a declaration that “4.7 million Palestinians are classified by the UN as refugees”.

This was made possible thanks to the efforts of Henry Clifford, the chairman of the area’s local Committee for Peace in Israel/Palestine, who purchased the billboard space so as to educate readers to what really is happening under the Israeli regime of occupation so generously supported by US dollars.

Immediately the advertisements were labelled “anti-Semitic” by area rabbis and Jewish community leaders. Here is the reasoning of Dovid Efune, “editor of the Manhattan-based Jewish newspaper, The Algemeiner:

This is anti-Semitic because when people think of the Jews they think of the Jewish state. Jews have seen this happen many times. It always starts with messaging that says Jews are committing a crime.

Three things are to be said about Mr Efune’s reaction. First, on the one hand, he seems not to care that the map display and UN statistic are real and accurate and what that means for the lives of millions of people. Secondly, on the other, and no doubt quite inadvertently, he does infer that what the advertisement reveals is criminal behaviour. Finally, if there is any truth to the assertion that “when people think of the Jews they think of the Jewish state” it is because Zionist propagandists have, for over 64 years, incessantly insisted on that identification. Those Jews who have publicly denied the connection have been abused and libelled. So, to the extent that Jews in general are identified with Israel’s “committing a crime”, you can thank the Zionists for that.

Rabbi Joshua Davidson (no relation of mine), senior Rabbi of Temple Beth El in northern Westchester, New York, says the map advertisement presents “a distorted and skewed view of a complicated conflict”. Actually, that is untrue. The advertisement simply puts forth historical truth. In addition, the conflict really is not as complex as Zionists say it is. It is the consequence of a rather straightforward, post-World War I, imperialist land grab that, in the case of Palestine, is on-going even now. It was and continues to be justified by religious mythology on the one hand and the history of anti-Semitic persecution on the other. The land grab was originally abetted by the British imperial politicians, some of whom imagined that they were helping to fulfil biblical prophecy, and others who saw a Jewish homeland in Palestine as a way of solving the “Jewish problem” in Europe. The Palestinians, being seen as inferior natives, were then and are now still, pushed aside.

Fanaticism on the ground

Rabbi Davidson might object to such simplicity, but Dani Dayan would not. Dayan is the leader of the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities, a leading organization espousing Israeli settlement of the West Bank. Unlike Rabbi Davidson, Dayan does not seek refuge in historical complexity. He lays it on the line in a recent New York Times op-ed.

Arabs called for Israel’s annihilation in 1967, and Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories, and the right of Israelis to call them home today is therefore unassailable.

Unfortunately, the days when conquest automatically resulted in a transfer of sovereignty ended with World War II. The primary rationale for the creation of the United Nations and the expansion of international law was to prevent just the sort of behaviour Dayan describes.

Also, like the statement of Dovid Efune, Dayan’s argument is logically confused. He is claiming that the hyperbolic rhetoric of Arab leaders in the run-up to the 1967 war somehow frees Israel from its obligations as a signatory to such international treaties as the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 49 (3) of that treaty prohibits an occupying power from “transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. Successive Israeli governments, both of the left and the right, have energetically violated that law by transferring civilians into these conquered lands. Dani Dayan now proudly points out there are some 350,000 of these illegal squatters (the number goes up by 200,000 if we include the Israeli transfers into Jerusalem). And, because this now constitutes the new “status quo,” Mr Dayan proclaims that Israelis have the “right … to call” such territories “home”. Where did he get that right? From his god? From very ancient history? From the fact that he walks about the area with an Uzi submachine gun strapped over his shoulder? There is certainly no basis for it in international law.

Dayan presents these illegally accomplished facts on the ground as “irreversible” and the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as “unattainable”. He challenges his readers to understand the realpolitiktruth of his position. And, according to Richard Falk, the United Nations special rapporteur for Palestinian human rights, it is hard to “doubt the force of Dayan’s reasoning on this central issue.” Well, if not the settler leader’s reasoning, which is faulty, then certainly one cannot doubt Israel’s physical possession of increasing amounts of Palestinian land. Apparently, the governments of the world have capitulated to Dani Dayan and vigilante squatters. Hamas, which would gladly defy them, is confined, also with international blessings, to Gaza, the world’s largest outdoor prison. Thus, there is no military presence on the ground that can gainsay Mr Dayan. So, what does this imply – that might makes right? Is that Mr Dayan’s version of Israel acting as a “light unto the nations”? Apparently so.

The need for outside pressure

The worldwide boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign’s “elasticity has made it into a broad process powerful enough to produce a new public mood and atmosphere…”

Ilan Pappe, Exeter University, UK}

However, Dani Dayan and his settler movement have not written the final act in this tragedy. Even if we take note of his present position in the West Bank, and also admit that the “peace process” is a pitiful fraud, it is premature for Dayan to proclaim that he has won the struggle and we must all accept his “status quo”. Colonialist ventures can be defeated in more than one way. The “usual” way is through prolonged and bloody armed struggle. Thanks to the world-class military machine the United States has helped Israel create and maintain this is not a likely path to success. But such regimes have also been forced to transform themselves into more equitable, more democratic and less repressive ones through concerted outside pressure. And such pressure is now as real and growing as Dayan’s squatter movement.

A major effort at outside pressure is the worldwide boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. Ilan Pappe, an Israeli-born professor at Exeter University in England, notes that this “campaign’s elasticity has made it into a broad process powerful enough to produce a new public mood and atmosphere…” As someone who has spent the last 35 years espousing the Palestinian cause, I can testify to the truth of that statement, even here in the United States.

It might very well be that Israel is here to stay. But that does not mean that it will always be the racist, oppressive society it is now. Consistently applied outside pressure, growing in scope and strength, can wear down support for ideologues such as Dani Dayan and his backers both in and outside of today’s Israel. It can, slowly but surely, convince ordinary Israelis that they have a choice: go along with their expansionist leaders and face increasing international isolation or, as Pappe puts it, cooperate willingly in “finding a formula for joint living” – that is, creating a better society that is tolerant and mindful of the need for justice, first and foremost for Israel’s victims, the Palestinian people. Also a nation that can be trusted to honour its obligations under international law.

The fate of international law

It should be clearly understood that it is not just Israel’s future or that of the Palestinians that is at stake here. All of us have to ask what value we place on international law. What value do we place on a world that recognizes the primacy of law born of sane human reason, rather than religious mythology, apocalyptic fantasies and tribal nationalism? It is all wrapped up together: as goes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so goes the viability of international law.

It is ironic that in the aftermath of the holocaust international law was strengthened and now, as the history so simply displayed on Mr Clifford’s billboards tells us, it is the Israelis who choose to cast it aside. If we allow this to happen, the world becomes more dangerous for all of us.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Palestinian history on a billboard versus Israeli fanaticism on the ground

Jordan Zionist Puppets tries to Hush up Reports of Clashes with the Syrian army


The Bedouin Guards of Honor at the Royal Palace in Jordan

Jordan Zionist puppet regime dismissed as inaccurate news reports of border clashes between Jordanian and Syrian forces.

The regime spokesperson Samih Maaytah said the Syrian army shot at Syrian refugees attempting to cross into Jordan late Wednesday, injuring several of them.

Maaytah described their injuries as light.

He said the Jordan Armed Forces work to ensure the security of refugees crossing into Jordan, offering them all possible assistance until they are transported to refugee camps.

Several news websites and television stations reported “heavy exchange of fire” between the two armies at four different border locations, saying that one Jordanian soldier was injured in the process.

Maaytah dismissed these reports as inaccurate and said that any shooting reported by residents of those areas is targeting refugees attempting to escape violence in their country.

Last Friday, Syrian forces fired at refugees crossing into Jordan, killing one child and injuring several people.

At the time, news media also reported clashes that the government denied, saying that the shooting was targeting people attempting to take refuge in Jordan, on the Syrian side of the border.

“The Jordanian military did not respond, there were no clashes,” Maaytah told The Jordan Times then.

Syria imposed a blockade on the border region to prevent civilians from fleeing to Jordan.

Syrian refugees claim the measure targets the relatives of armed servicemen whose safety remains Damascus’ main leverage to prevent defections en masse.

Although hundreds of Syrians have been wounded in their attempts to enter Jordan — many of them fatally — Syria’s military clampdown has failed to curb a refugee influx that, according to the UN, has topped 1,000 persons per day.

The issue of refugees has become a growing point of contention between Jordan and Syria, with Damascus objecting to Amman’s ongoing open-border policy of offering shelter to civilians and army defectors alike.

Posted in JordanComments Off on Jordan Zionist Puppets tries to Hush up Reports of Clashes with the Syrian army

TUT Broadcast with Sammi Ibrahem: Jewish supremacism

TUT Broadcast with Sammi Ibrahem Aug 3, 2012

by crescentandcross

Pathological narcissism as the seed of Jewish supremacism and WWIII.

The one and only Sammi Ibrahem is joined by the one and only Nashid Abdul Khaaliq to discuss this aspect of the Jewish problem


Download Here


Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Interview, PoliticsComments Off on TUT Broadcast with Sammi Ibrahem: Jewish supremacism

How Jewish Supremacists Determine the Issues in U.S. Politics


The Republican party is courting illegal Israeli West Bank Settlers to vote for Mitt Romney in the upcoming presidential elections, and are using Obama’s policy toward Israel as a “cudgel to score political points and woo Jewish voters and donors,” a new article in the AlterNet news source has claimed.

“Critics of the Israel lobby’s influence in US politics often say, tongue-in-cheek, that Israel should be named the 51st state. But this presidential election season, that sentiment comes close to the reality of how the Republican Party is treating the country. Israel, like the 50 states in the US, will be a source for votes and money and a backdrop for presidential campaigning,” the article, written by Alex Kane, continues,

The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) has partnered with an Israeli group to encourage Israelis who are American citizens–including West Bank settlers–to vote in the 2012 elections.

The effort is also being promoted by a group called Republicans Abroad Israel. The partnership, and presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s plan to visit Israel in late July , makes clear that the Republicans will use President Barack Obama’s policy towards Israel as a cudgel to score political points and woo Jewish voters and donors — though most American Jews vote Democratic.

The politicking about how Obama is an “anti-Israel” president obscures the reality that Obama has not touched the sacrosanct US-Israeli alliance and has continued to lavish aid and diplomatic support to the Jewish state.

Approximately 250,000 American citizens live in Israel–and many of them lean right. According to the Los Angeles Times , 75 percent of Americans in Israel voted for John McCain in the 2008 election, essentially the same share of American Jews who voted for Obama overall.

RJC and a group called iVoteIsrael, whose mission is to encourage Americans who are also Israeli citizens to vote in US elections based on “who will support and stand by Israel,” held a number of events in Jerusalem in early July promoting their campaign. RJC executive director Matt Brooks and Ari Fleischer, an RJC board member and the former press secretary for George W. Bush, were the ringleaders of this effort, and they wasted no time criticizing Obama’s Israel policy.

The choice is between pushing Israel around as President Obama has done, and Governor Romney, who will stand strong by Israel’s side,” Fleischer told an audience of Israeli-American voters . He also told them that “there is a possibility that a large number of absentee ballots coming into Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio can make the difference.”

While RJC and Republicans Abroad Israel are clearly partisan, iVoteIsrael claims that its effort is nonpartisan. But the Times of Israel reported that “key staffers [of iVoteIsrael] have been closely affiliated with right-wing parties in Israel, the US and elsewhere.”

iVoteIsrael’s ideology is clearly right-leaning–you only have to look to where the organization’s “regional directors” and “drop boxes” for registration forms are located to find that out. A number of locations iVoteIsrael works from are in illegal Jewish-only settlements that are seen as violating Palestinian human rights and blocking a contiguous Palestinian state. iVoteIsrael locations include Ma’ale Adumim, a major Jewish settlement outside of Jerusalem, and Gush Etzion, another major settlement.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on How Jewish Supremacists Determine the Issues in U.S. Politics

Jewish Supremacists Force “Conspiracy of Silence” from U.S. Presidents


Jewish Supremacists and the Israeli lobby have such influence over the U.S. government that they can force American presidents to remain silent about Israeli policies even when they disagree completely with what the Zionist state is doing, according to a new article by Stephen M. Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard University and co-author of The Israel Lobby.

Titled What ‘Unshakeable Commitment’ to Israel Really Means,” the article first discusses the outrageous pandering to Israel by Mitt Romney before getting round to the influence of the Jewish lobby in America.

Referring to both Obama and Romney, Walt writes: “They are simply pandering to domestic politics, which is something that all American politicians do on a host of different issues.

“Of course, they will still have to shape their policies with the lobby’s clout in mind (as Obama’s humiliating retreat on the settlement issue demonstrates), but nobody should be under the illusion that they genuinely believe all the flattering stuff that they are forced to say.

“Why do I say that? Well, consider what former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in a July 2000 interview, conducted as part of an oral history project conducted by the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.

‘…Every president I worked for, at some point in his presidency, would get so pissed off at the Israelis that he couldn’t speak. It didn’t matter whether it was Jimmy Carter or Gerry Ford or Ronald Reagan or George Bush. Something would happen and they would just absolutely go screw themselves right into the ceiling they were so angry and they’d sort of rant and rave around the Oval Office. I think it was their frustration about knowing that there was so little they could do about it because of domestic politics and everything else that was so frustrating to them.’

“What was true of these presidents was also true of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and if Romney ends up getting elected, I’ll bet the same thing will happen to him too. He just won’t admit it publicly.

“The obvious danger in this conspiracy of silence is that it prevents the foreign policy community from having an honest discussion about the whole Middle East situation, including the ‘special relationship.’

“Although public discourse on this topic is more open and wide-ranging than it used to be, mostly because some journalists and academics are freer to write honestly about this topic, it is still nearly impossible for politicians or ambitious policy wonks to say what they really think.

“If you want to get elected, or if you want to work on a campaign and maybe serve in the U.S. government, you have to either 1) be fully committed to the “special relationship,” 2) pretend to be committed by mouthing all the usual platitudes or 3) remain studiously silent about the whole subject.”

Posted in USAComments Off on Jewish Supremacists Force “Conspiracy of Silence” from U.S. Presidents

Dismembering the Arab World

by Makram Khoury-Machool

Dr Makram Khoury-Machool is a Palestinian scholar, based in Cambridge, UK

The behaviour of the NATO-aligned, anti-Syrian bloc is now blatant enough for us to better understand what is happening in Syria. On the one hand, we find political operators such the ad-hoc group ‘Friends of Syria’, and on the other, two Arab personalities, both ministers of two Gulf sheikhdoms.

The first group includes NATO-led heads of states, with a barely disguised Israeli master-plan conceived by the likes of Bernard-Henri Lévy. Rather than being the friends of Syria, these personalities are arguably working to secure their own financial interests in, around, and via Syria. The two Arab politicians are the two foreign ministers ofSaudi ArabiaandQatar. They have declared that those forces acting violently against the Syrian state should be armed and financially supported. In short, these conventions of the so-called ‘Friends of Syria’ are probably no more than a ‘modern’ version of those meetings conducted by Viceroy Lord Curzon, who, in 1903, addressed the ‘Chiefs of the Arab Coast’ on HMS Argonaut in Sharjah (UAE).

The Qataris and Saudis give financial support to the ‘rebels’ for weapons, payments to fighters and mercenaries, and logistical oversight of attacks on Syria. All of this is in addition to their support with telecommunication services, combat tactics, and strategic military advice. Unsurprisingly, the Western military advisors, who operate for the armed groups behind the scenes, do not feature in any media outlets. Neighbouring states also provide geographical assistance to the armed groups, with Jordan providing a passage for mercenaries from Libya, and Turkey acting as the northern military base for operations.

Turkey is involved because of its wish to align itself with the Saudi-Sunni, NATO-backed line and also its fear that a dismembered Syria would lead to the promotion of Kurdish autonomy. In their eyes, this could bring about the eventual union of the Kurds with Iraqi and Syrian Kurds and then lead to civil war with Turkey and the eventual separation of Kurdistan from Turkey and the creation of a Kurdish state.

For its part, Israel has for decades planned, as part of its strategy to dominate the Middle East and the Mediterranean, to weaken Syria in order to continue its occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights and to dominate water sources. Essentially, Israel wants to be the main economic and military power in the region and indeed, Israel may well emerge from the weakening ofSyria as the main winner, if only in the short-term.

Through its orchestrated media campaigns transmitted over the decades to its  own public,Israel has constructed a concept of Syria as the major threat to its existence in the Arab world. Arguably, the governmental vacuum that might be created in Syria could be filled by al-Qaeda-like groups giving sufficient justification for Israel’s actions (against Syria and/or Iran) and would also promote the idea of a conflict between ‘civilized-democratic’ Israel and ‘savage’ Islamists.

Despite huge differences between Syria and Libya, Syria’s fate could be similar to that of Libya in terms of direct foreign intervention, were not Russia and China firmly opposed such actions at the UN, where there has been consistent cooperation between the two. Although the origins of Sino-Soviet relations go back to the early days of the 1917 Communist Revolution, it seems that, even two decades after the dismantlement of the Eastern Bloc, the Russian Federation and the Republic of China are, more than ever, following what Mao Tse-tung advised in his ‘Be a True Revolutionary’ address on 23 June 1950. Here, Tse-tung said that ‘in the international sphere we must firmly unite with the Soviet Union’ (see Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, vol. V. p. 39). Shared ideology, world vision, economic interests, and objectives in the field of energy have brought Russia and China ever closer together over the Syrian conflict.

World oil production is headed by Saudi Arabia, with Russia second, the USA third, Iran fourth and China fifth. In terms of oil reserves, we find that the top ten states are:1) Venezuela, 2) Saudi Arabia, 3) Canada, 4) Iran, 5) Iraq, 6) Kuwait, 7) UAE, 8) Russia, 9) Kazakhstan and 10) Libya. Russia is the largest gas producer in the world, with Europe dependent on its gas sourcing. In world gas production, if, because of their geographical distance, we exclude the USA and Canada, Iran comes second and Qatar third. In terms of gas reserves, Russia is number one, with Iran and Qatar in fourth place and Saudi Arabia in sixth. With neighbouring Saudi Arabia as one of the ten leading producers of gas in the world, it is clear why the export interests of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are particularly important and this ranking should give us a clear idea of the alliances that have formed in light of the Syrian conflict.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar (which in different circumstances could have been one state and might yet experience a geographical reshuffle) are both Arab-Muslim-Sunni and both have economic interests. Qatar’s greedy pursuit of marketing contracts for Libyan gas and oil supplies explains its agreement with NATO to attack Libya, its symbolic participation in the air strikes and its support for the rebels to establish a media capability.

Qatar’s aim is to export its gas toEurope, compete with the Russians and gain important political bargaining chips. In order for the export of Qatari gas to Europe to be feasible and competitive, a gas pipe must be laid through Syria. As Russia’s long-standing ally and with the precedents of numerous joint deals dating back to the USSR era, Syria is unlikely to allow anything to threaten the destabilization of Russia’s interests in their last strategic stronghold in the Arab world. This is the main reason why Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting the opposition’s struggle to topple the Syrian government.

Syria is fast becoming a Pandora’s box from which all the historical crises of the last 120 years are re-emerging. These begin with the Russo-Turkish war in 1877-8, the Russo-Japanese war in 1904, WWI and WWII and the Cold War. Normally, it takes a superpower 2-3 decades to emerge. It took the USA nearly 25 years to emerge as a superpower from 1890 to the end of WWI. After the death of Lenin in 1924, the USSR was the sick man of Europe. In 1945, after WWII and under Stalin, it emerged as a superpower. After Gorbachev, Russia ceased to be a superpower and seemingly, the Cold War ended. In just over two decades, Putin has ended the unipolar system and a new bipolar world is emerging – as if the Cold War had never ended.

Close examination of the Syrian political system reveals that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is, indeed, a reformist. However, in Syria, as in any other state, factions are intertwined in power-struggles and these and the necessary processes of socialization will take some time to work through. Whilst, as Assad said, it takes just a couple of minutes to sign a new law, it takes much longer to educate people to absorb and participate in the implementation of the new values those laws enshrine. Western ruling elites’ portrayal of these new norms as seemingly growing on trees is an act of disutility and definitely immoral.

Syria was the last secular, socially-cohesive Arab state based on a top-down secular ideology. Despite its volatile, geopolitical surroundings (Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq), Syrian citizens lived securely under this Arab secularism. Syria encompasses a particular type of pluralism and multiculturalism, embedded with religious tolerance and a pluralist existence. This is demonstrated by the toleration of a church, a mosque, a bar and the equal coexistence of both secular and veiled women. In fact, the reform process begun in Syria is more advanced than any similar process in any other Arab state.

It includes the removal of emergency laws, the implementation of party laws, election laws, a key media law, and the approval of a new constitution including the removal of the article on the sole leadership of the al-Ba’ath party. Such reforms are part of a genuine political process that will take time. However, this reform process has been totally and intentionally undermined by forces, including Western governments acting against the Syrian state. In the last decades, and particularly since 9/11, the West has continually propagated the notion that Islamist terrorists have been threatening the secular way of life. However, Sunnis, technically the religious majority in Syria, contain large segments, and are no less secular than any other Western society.

So, despite Syrians’ clear right to defend the secularity of their way of life, the aim of the West is to dismantle the Syrian state, alter the power structure, and create new demo-geographic entities such as a confederation of the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, which at present, is Turkey’s nightmare. Specific areas might also be depopulated, which might then be used, as has been done with the Druze, to repopulate with Syrian Christians and perhaps with Christians from Lebanon. Other Christians would leave the Levant altogether. The Alawites would then have another state, linked perhaps, with Iran.

The plan is to destroy the modern Arab state of Syria that emerged after WWI and in the 1940s, and, where possible, to establish new religious states (similar to the Jewish state of Israel). In this way, Arab power and along with it, the Pan-Arab ideology of Michel Aflaq and Antun Sa’ade (both Arab Christians) and Nasser of Egypt, would disappear. This process began when, in 1978-9 under Sadat, Egypt signed its peace treaty with Israel, and was followed by the destruction of Lebanon in 1982, the second Intifada in 1987, and the economic takeover of Iraq in 2003. It was then followed in Libya with the seizing of oil and gas in 2011. Therefore, in order to keep the US-Rael (US-Israel) hegemony, the West needs to align states along sectarian lines (Sunni-Shiite) rather than on Pan-Arabism. Indeed, this process was boosted after the occupation of Iraq and the toppling of the Ba’ath party.

In practice, what is now happening in the Arab world is a ‘correction’ of the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement, when the main colonial powers, Britain and France, carved out the boundaries of the current Arab states and installed their own Arab agents. These ongoing, neo-colonial plans include provision for any two or more Arab parties to fight the Syrian regime and to keep them fighting until such time as each state is dismembered and fractured into 2-3 states, based on sectarian lines. Then colonial elites can continue to scoop up the wealth because, after all, the imperial mentality has hardly changed.

Since Western powers cannot achieve this on their own, they need agents such as Qatar in Libya and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others in Syria. These agents, preferably self-serving, undemocratic Arab-Muslim-Sunni monarchies, will use Sunni-Islam to promote fanaticism against other Arabs, Muslims and non-Muslims (e.g., Arab Christians, Shiites and Druze). Those Arabs with access to the (economic) global elite (for example, the Royal Saudi family and the Qataris with the Americans and other European elites) are, by and large, the ruling elites in the Arab Gulf or their protégés.

It is they who are driving a wedge between the various sects and magnifying and exploiting the playing of the Sunni card with non-Arab Muslim Sunni Turkey against Syria. It would hardly be a surprise either if they were in cahoots with Israel-serving Western powers. Otherwise, it would remain fairly difficult to explain why the most authoritarian regime on earth, Saudi Arabia, is acting against Syria and trying to teach it lessons in democracy, something that Saudi Arabia is not very keen to know much about.

The negative, orientalist, propaganda campaigns conducted against Syria in the past year with the financial backing of some Gulf countries have intentionally obscured elements within Syria, such as Syria’s secularism – something with which Western societies would naturally identify. So, the importance of Syria’s largely secular Ba’ath Party ideology, which guaranteed at least private liberties, has been kept hidden. This is for example in addition to the fact that Daoud Rajhah, the assassinated Syrian Minister of Defence, was a Christian, as was Dr Nabil Zughaib, the recently assassinated (along with his family) head of the Syrian missile programme.

The above examples of a deliberate elimination of facts are arguably due to Syria’s alliance with Russia, which is the ‘wrong’ camp. This close relationship between Syria and Russia has lasted for over five decades. Furthermore, Syria is the soft (Alawaite/Shiite-secular) underbelly between NATO refusnik (Shiite) Iran and Shiite HizboAllah in Lebanon. Whilst in Israel’s short-term eyes, the main opposition to its domination is Iran (as well as HizboAllah, Syria, and formerly, Hamas), Syria is now, therefore, the target. As such, Syria is now taking the punishment, so that the whole metaphoric body will eventually be dismembered.

But what is the relevance of Hamas Here? Until it democratically won the elections in 2006 (nearly two years after the assassination of Yasser Arafat), and then a year later staged a coup against the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in the Gaza Strip, Hamas was a resistance movement supported by Iran, Damascus, and HizboAllah. If Iran is the metaphoric ‘head’ and HizboAllah and Hamas the two legs, Syria has been the ‘belly’ or the ‘heart’ and ‘lungs’ of this ‘body’ of resistance.

But since Hamas has run the Gaza Strip, it has largely ceased to be a resistance movement and has become institutionalized. Here, Israel (and Sharon in particular) won a tactical victory. At hardly any cost, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, while keeping it under siege, attacking it at will and giving the keys to the prisoners (Hamas) to run for them the largest open-air prison on earth. And all this was done without Hamas even realizing what was going on. Perhaps someone thought that the name could be beautified and, instead of prison, it might turn into an EmiRison (Emirate and prison).

In the first half of 2012, Hamas’ leaders left Damascus, where their headquarters were, and are now keeping publicly quiet and refraining from supporting the Syrian government – a government, which has supported them for more than two decades. With the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia and Egypt, and their rise in Libya, Hamas now seems to have new and powerful patrons, and in countries where it can operate from a much more powerful position. Hamas’ leadership (both in the Diaspora and in the Gaza Strip) has been invited by the newly elected Egyptian president, to join, the Muslim Brotherhood (their mother organization) as equals. What seemed until yesterday to be a resistance movement (though some may argue that they were never revolutionary, unlike other leftist Palestinian factions, such as the PFLP, DFLP, etc.), is now woven into the embroidery of a Sunni-Muslim alliance which has started to act under the wing of NATO.

Western orientalists like to imagine what needs to happen for their interests in the Orient to be served. They begin by labeling the Arab world the ‘Middle East’, as if it were just a geographical marker placed only in relation to where they themselves are. In order to secure their planned thievery, they invent terms to obfuscate and justify their covert or overt military actions. However, their security/intelligence services always fail to predict developments in the Arab world such as the Intifada of 1987 and the Hamas coup in 2007. Still, their superficial and ignorant power-elites never cease to manufacture new names and processes, the latest of which is the naming of whatever started in Tunisia as the ‘Arab Spring’.

What is happening in some Arab states and in the Arab world is no ‘Spring’: it is a reactionary process which will bounce back, as the USA experienced in Afghanistan, where the US both created and supported the same jihadists they later fought against. So, the US-Israel has been trying to cut deals with the Islamists in power so that they may control the masses. Indeed, this is not the first time that political strategists have tried to use religion to avoid chaos and defend their economic interests. This is similar to what Machiavelli described (based on the account of the Roman historian Titus Livius (Livy) Patavinus (59 BC-17 AD), who wrote Books from the Foundation of the City) and referred to in Discourses on Livy, when he sub-headed a chapter as: ‘How the Romans made religion serve to reorder the city and carry out their enterprise to stop tumults’.

So, Western propaganda campaigns against Syria seek to convince the public (the ‘plebs’) to fear religion rather than obey their current Arab leaders. This is why, despite the censored protests in the three Arab kingdoms (KSA, Morocco and Jordan), the world has hardly (because of censorship, gate-keeping and lack of Western media attention) seen any substantial protests compared to those in other Arab republics. One of the reasons was that there was hardly anyone to promote any special well-funded media campaigns and to pay the huge sums required. (This is perhaps with the exception of Bahrain, and the possible influence of Iran). However, there is no guarantee that a counter-hegemonic campaign would still succeed in these Arab monarchies.

After defeating the rival al-Rashid clan in 1921, the al-Saud family currently rules in most of the historical Arabian Peninsula. Its regional prominence is also due to control of the holy sites of Mekka and Medina and its alliance with, and use of, Wahabism as well as its oil and mineral resources. These resources subsidize its related cultural (media) industry. Nevertheless, religious and economic factors are evidently complex, interwoven and involve a large social network. This combination may be expressed in what I call ‘The Saudi ethic, the spiritual buck’  –  somewhat similar to Weber’s ‘Protestant Ethic thesis’ which stood behind the accumulation of wealth in northernEurope.

Through the accumulation of capital in theGulf statesin the 1970s (controlled by Anglo-American protection through treaties that brought large numbers of Arabs to be either economically dependent (through employment in the Gulf), or spiritually dependent through control of Arab media), the oil boom created a new social stratification in the Arab world. As a result, some Arab societies have been dependent on and accepting of the authority of the ruling Saudi family and its clans. These elites are part of the ruling economic elites who own some of the most valuable energy projects, valuable assets and properties in the West, including Harrods, football teams, property on the Champs Élysées and partnerships with Rupert Murdoch, to mention but a few.

The recent discovery that Arabs want their freedom is chiefly promoted by some Arab and Western media institutions which are themselves an extension of policy makers who have their own economic objectives, strategies and tactics. The media campaigns that are being conducted by neo-conservative capitalist, Zionists such as Bernard-Henri Lévy, who aggressively serves Israel, and who has a strong affinity to fundamentalist Judaism, aim only to separate Arabs from their wealth and resources, whilst, at the same time, deceiving them.

This is done through the dual strategy of manufacturing a separate narrative for two separate segments of the population. To the religious, corruption is associated with faithlessness, while to the entire Arab nation they sell the very appealing dream of freedom, justice, and liberty. Naturally, each individual will interpret this according to his or her own upbringing, socialization, politicization, norms and values. So, whilst all might meet in the ‘square’, the Islamists will believe Islamic scripts to be the solution, liberals will recall Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the ‘separation of powers’ of Montesquieu and the French Revolution, Marxists will think of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and class struggle and the Maoists will think of the Cultural Revolution of Mao Tse-Tung or Nasserism (after all, when a group of Egyptian army officers conducted a coup and a revolution in 1952, Mao Tse-Tung declared that ‘the struggle against corruption and waste is a major issue which concerns the whole party’ (30 November, 1951) and it therefore fits the bill of fighting corrupt Arab regimes). Meanwhile, those who dream of Castro and Che Guevara will run to the ‘barricades’ in the squares in a stand off against the state security forces.

In fact, all of these values are just non-starters in the Arab world and Zio-Liberals know this. The reality is that, because of social control and the way Arab societies have been socialized in the last century (including the impact of colonial heritage) and because of the wealth Wahabi Islam (and modern Salafis) have enjoyed from oil revenues, except for the Islamic faction, the other ideologies will make little progress but rather will simply ensure the victory of the religious movements.

True, the Arab world has been heterogeneous, though only mildly. Religion has prevailed even in states like Jordan where, for decades, Islamists controlled most school curricula. Thus, in every Arab state that has had unrest, and particularly so in Egypt, there is a fierce power struggle over the constitution. The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis won the majority of seats in the parliamentary elections, and the first democratically elected president, Muhammad Mursi (elected only by quarter of citizens), is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Major powers are working towards promulgating a constitution based on a relevant interpretation of Sharia laws. In his ‘Morphology of the State’, Aristotle suggests that there is a need to ‘consider not only which constitution is best, but also which is practicable and most easily within reach’ (p. 103). In the eyes of the religious fundamentalists, this can be the Sharia laws, whilst a solution for the Western ruling elites is in place.

As they have secured their economic interests through religious-elite controlled   media institutions, they will in turn benefit from their own social, economic and political centres of power, and a new niche of businessmen will emerge from the circles/classes of the religious elites. Religious groups will also increase their economic participation alongside political participation. Since it will benefit their political jihad, some will see this as halal whether inside or outside   the framework of Islamic banking. Social division will, however, remain or widen and the only difference is that the names have changed. Instead of a ‘Mubarak’, it will be someone else (but this time, someone with a beard) and these apparent ‘changes’ will simply maintain political control.

The affected populations are those defined as ‘minorities’ – mainly Arab Christians (around 30 million of them in the Arab world), secular (Sunni and Shiite) Muslims and others. In Egypt, Mohammad Zawahiri (the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri) has already declared that Egyptian Christians should pay a tax as Dhimmi’s (infidels) or else leave Egypt. And if they refuse, he has suggested they be confronted and coerced.

An example of mobilizing the population through religion in the media has been adopted by the Saudi monarch himself. During Ramadan 2012, Abdallah of Saudi Arabia and his heir launched a fundraising campaign supposedly in aid of the Syrian people – or so the slogan said. This campaign was based on Islamic moral norms and sense of community, especially those emphasized during the holy month of Ramadan. Whilst selling his people messages of community and compassion, these campaigns are used for both local and regional political purposes. A similar campaign launched by Syria for the liberation of Saudi Arabian women, and the need for them to drive, is unimaginable.

Besuited, Goebbels-like liberals who stand alongside those chiefs of sheikhdoms, have so far, attempted to deceive part of Arab public opinion and to manufacture a consensus against the Syrian government, and so diverted from themselves the heat of their own ‘streets’. Whilst they themselves adhere to the most archaic norms and beliefs regarding freedom and democracy, they instigate mass deception against Syria that is, in terms of its social norms, such as women’s freedoms, religious minorities’ rights, equal opportunities and personal liberties, etc., much closer to liberal Western countries. In much the same way as the Arab regimes would like to rally domestic public opinion in support of Palestinians, Gulf regimes are using the false argument that they are against the oppression of Syrians by their own government to rally their ‘streets’ against Syria. And this despite the fact that they themselves are light years behindSyriain terms of freedom and democracy.

Western governments are no friends of liberal democracy in the Third World. They inevitably deal with those governments with the worst records of human rights and then only when it is of financial benefit to them. Just as in July 2008, when Nicolas Sarkozy and current archenemy of Syria, the Emir of Qatar, formed, with the Syrian leadership, the ‘Union of the Mediterranean’, some European governments think they also might benefit financially from the crisis in the Arab world. This is particularly so when they have the support of rich Gulf States and believe they can somehow reduce the economic crises they are facing.

In some parts of Syria personal security has diminished since March 2011 and central government has not been always notable for its moral conduct. However, as part of a strategic political campaign, the media are intentionally lying about the situation in Syria. They instill fear in the Syrian public and affect exaggerated concern for casualties and loss of life. Thus, they construct a narrative, which facilitates and justifies increased assistance to the armed groups, separatists, terrorists, and mercenaries. The same media also portray the Syrian government as solely responsible for the violence, when in fact, those who recruit, pay and supply weapons to easily malleable, unemployed and cash-hungry individuals are themselves really responsible.

There are two main culprits for the increase in casualties: lying and the silencing of any opposing voice. With their Arab allies, NATO switched off the signal for the satellite connection of the Syrian al-Dunia satellite channel. Other acts of satellite ‘terror’ arguably included the CIA’s hijacking of al-Dunia’s Twitter account, so as to disseminate disinformation about the Syrian army’s false retreat. The same Arab satellite that Syria helped found after the loss of the second part ofPalestinein 1967, is now being used against it by those formerArab Gulf sheikhdoms.

This satellite is now being used in the conflict in Syria – but against Syria – and includes disinformation chiefly by Gulf-owned channels that promote fear and panic about economic instability in Syria. The media are being used and manipulated as a cover for the incitement of terrorist action by the Syrian opposition and also to garner economic aid, and this same media then present the sanitized, ‘heroic’ achievements of the ‘rebels’ and, when necessary, depict any losses they encounter as ‘massacres’.

By and large, Western and mainstream Arab media are left with nearly only one option: to swallow disinformation from unreliable ‘spin’ bodies, which they then pump out to the public. Stories of massacres by the Syrian government are, for propaganda purposes, broadcast to justify foreign intervention, and the prevailing image is that of the noble West coming to save an incapable, oppressed Third World nation from the tyranny of a chauvinist male oppressor.

This is exactly what happened in Libya. Nonetheless, a minority of Arab media is opposing the master plan and another minority are sitting on the fence. The Arab media are mostly, either directly or indirectly, in the hands of Gulf States, while any other journalists either operate discreetly on the payroll of those forces or are totally deluded and find it impossible to grasp the tragic ramifications of what is taking place in the Arab world. The anti-war values of Bertolt Brecht’s Mother Courage are most probably not high on the agenda in some oil rich states, since they might expose the dichotomy between religion and war economy even further.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Dismembering the Arab World

Zionist Lobby Succeeds in Outrageous Iran Sanctions Bill


The Zionist Supremacist lobby has succeeded in pressurizing its puppets in the U.S. House and Senate to pass an “enhanced” sanctions bill against Iran, based on the lies generated over “atom bombs.”

The U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate each passed the final version of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act on Wednesday — the House by a 421-6 vote and the Senate by unanimous consent, enabling passage by advancing a motion as long as no senator objects.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which lobbied for passage, praised both houses and particularly the bills sponsors, Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).

“Each passing day affords the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism the ability to advance its illicit nuclear program,” AIPAC said. “America must lead the effort to exert the maximum economic pressure to get Iran to change course.”

The bill expands sanctions on insurers dealing with Iran’s energy sector; sanctions anyone affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps; expands sanctions on energy and uranium mining activities in Tehran; and freezes the assets of individuals and companies that enable Iran to repress its citizens through the use of technology.

It also reduces the threshold for incurring sanctions from $20 million in annual dealings with Iran’s energy sector to $5 million.

Also, for the first time in actionable legislation, the measure defines the capability of building a nuclear weapon as posing a threat to the United States.

In a conference call Tuesday on the eve of the votes, top White House officials said the bill would be a useful tool for them in ratcheting up pressure on Iran, suggesting that they were ready to implement most of its provisions.

“We certainly share the goal, and we believe it can be an important tool in adding to the sanctions regime we have in place,” Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, said on the call. “We are reviewing the specific text of the bill that was produced, but we’re quite optimistic that we’re going to be able to continue to work in lockstep with Congress with this new legislation that’s working its way through Congress as we increase pressure.”

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zionist Lobby Succeeds in Outrageous Iran Sanctions Bill

POMED Notes: “Next Steps in Syria”


On Wednesday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the conflict in Syria and how the U.S. should or should not respond. Witnesses included the Honorable Martin Indyk, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy for the Brookings Institution; the Honorable James Dobbins, Director of International Security and Defense Policy Center for the Rand Corporation; andAndrew Tabler, Senior Fellow in the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Senator John Kerry chaired the hearing, and Senator and Ranking Member Richard Lugar and Senators Jim Webb, Jeanne Shaheen, Christopher Coons, and Bob Corker were also present.

For full event notes, continue reading below or click here for the PDF version.

Martin Indyk opened his testimony with an opening statement highlighting the threat of sectarian conflict after the Assad government falls. He testified that the U.S. should be encouraging different opposition to cooperate and send a clear message to Syrian minorities that they will not be threatened in the event of the regime’s collapse. He also suggested that the U.S. ought to work with the “insiders” in the Syrian opposition and convince them to unify under a common, coherent political platform.

James Dobbins began by posing a series of questions that he believed must be answered positively before intervening in Syria: should we participate in an intervention? Is there a justification for intervention? And is there a reasonable chance of success? The rebels, Dobbins said, are popular and draw support from the majority of Syrians and enjoy support from several neighboring countries and the U.S. He also argued that postwar Syria will probably look different than Iraq has over the last few years; conflicts that end definitively and militarily are less likely to drag on later, and this is probably what will happen in Syria, as opposed to a negotiated solution between the regime and the rebels. For now, and until the rebels explicitly ask for intervention, the U.S. should continue quietly aiding the rebels.

Andrew Tabler warned that if the isolation of the rebels continues, the future government they form will not look favorably on the U.S, but it is not too late to step in to help. The death toll now stands at over 20,000, and hundreds of thousands have been displaced. The problem, Tabler said, is that we know very little about the ideological background of the rebels, and it is not clear whether they want to establish a secular, democratic state. Because today’s rebels will be tomorrow’s government of Syria, the U.S. should figure out which factions to support and not simply drop weapons in Syria indiscriminately.

Various Senators then proceeded to ask questions of the witnesses, portions of which are paraphrased below.

Kerry: Why should we intervene?

Tabler: If we do not step in at this point, there could be a large sectarian war that spreads across the region from Syria.

Kerry: What is the danger of Sunni countries in the region supporting the largely Sunni rebels? Is there a chance that the rebels will pursue an Islamist path?

Indyk: We should avoid the Islamist “bogeyman.” Syria is already a largely secular state. It is the ongoing conflict which drives extremism more than anything else. We should, however, require that the rebels declare their ideological affiliations.

Dobbins: If we are really worried about Al-Qaeda, we can marginalize them by supporting those insurgents who share our interests.

Coons: How can we reach out and bridge the divides within the Syrian opposition?

Indyk: To do this we both international support and a vision for the future.

Dobbins: We need to have something to offer the rebels; those whom we engage with will be empowered.

Tabler: The rebels were waiting for a long time to meet with us until U.S. officials finally got permission to do so. We must now engage with the rebels and the Levant as a whole, or other actors will. The Russians will bend to our interests once they see Assad continuing to be weakened.

Kerry: What are out interests in this conflict?

Tabler: We could deal a decisive blow to Iran by helping to take out Assad, which of course will be of benefit to Israel, too. A larger war in the future will also be prevented.

Indyk: It is in our interests to prevent the destabilization of the entire area. A Sunni/Shia conflict could end up radiating across the region, even potentially as far away as Bahrain.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on POMED Notes: “Next Steps in Syria”

Treasonous syrian umbrella groups meet with neocons and zionsts,to dicuss Syrias way foward!


 POMED Notes – “Syria: A Way Forward”

On Wednesday, the American Syrian Coalition – the Syrian American Council, the Syrian Emergency Task Force, Syrian Expatriates, and United for a Free Syria – held an event entitled “Syria: A Way Forward.” The panel featured James Hooper, managing director of the Public International Law & Policy Group, Andrew Tabler, a senior fellow in the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Joseph Holliday, a senior research analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. Cole Bockenfeld, director of advocacy at the Project on Middle East Democracy, moderated the discussion.For full event notes, continue reading below or click here for the PDF version.Read more…


James Hooper opened the panel, coming out in strong support of U.S. military intervention in Syria’s ongoing civil war. When Syria’s 4th armored division moved from Damascus to Aleppo, stretching out along the highway, tanks and armored personnel carriers would have been easy targets for U.S. bombers, Hooper said. It was an opportunity lost. Hooper warned that the United States “lacks an intuitive understanding of the Middle East” but what, he asked, could happen if the administration fully committed to supporting the Syrian opposition? Hooper seemed to suggest that U.S. military intervention could induce a political military alliance between the Kurds, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Free Syrian Army. And from an international law standpoint, an intervention would be entirely legal, Hooper claimed.
Hooper based this assertion on the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, an emerging norm in the international community that allows for an intervention to protect civilians from mass atrocities when peaceful measures have failed. Through the R2P doctrine, Hooper said, a coalition led by the U.S. could use the threat of airstrikes to negotiate the dismantling of the Assad regime. Washington cannot bluff, however, and Assad will undoubtedly test U.S. resolve, Hooper warned.
[ED NOTES:WHO IS JAMES HOOPER AND THE   Public International Law & Policy Group ? THE GROUP IS FINANCED BY… Financial Supporters Carnegie Corporation of New York Open Society Institute  Financial Supporters  Managing Board  James Hooper “is a Managing Director of the Public International Law & Policy Group. He is the former director of the Washington office of theInternational Crisis Group (ICG), as Deputy Ambassador he led the effort to prepare Poland’s post-communist government and military for NATO membership[ED NOTES:HES A NATO ADVOCATE, CHEERLEADER,AND A SOROS PUPPET]
Joseph Holliday outlined a recent military history of the conflict.
Essentially, the Syrian army began an offensive in January to end the uprising “once and for all.” Starting in Damascus, Syrian forces traveled from city to city clearing areas of rebels. The offensive was, on the whole, successful until May, during which “something changed.” That change, according to Holliday, was likely Saudi Arabia and Qatar beginning to provide weapons for the rebel fighters. By June, the Free Syrian Army was armed and organized enough to go on the offensive. The stretching out of Assad’s forces during their five month sweep north enabled the rebels to strike Damascus. This forced Assad to bring troops back to the capital and showed the regime that it could not afford to use brigades defending Damascus to hunt down rebels in other areas. Now the Syrian army is confined to outposts, unable to venture out for fear of being ambushed.
And as Assad loses control of larger areas of the country and “begins to contract,” Holliday said, opposition forces will begin to occupy the security/political vacuum left behind. Local coordinating committees have become “revolutionary councils” and, in fact, have successfully run areas abandoned by the regime. Holliday concluded saying “we need to figure out who is actually going to end up controlling Syria because it’s not going to be the Syrian National Council.”

Founded in 2007, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has supported long-term U.S. military intervention abroad, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan.  As of December 2011, ISW did not publicize on its website the members of its board of directors. However, according to 2008 tax documents, the organization has had five board members: Elizabeth Cheney (chair), daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney and founder of the right-wing advocacy groupKeep America SafeWilliam Kristol, editor of the neoconservative flagship magazine theWeekly StandardJack Keane, a retired four-star general who coauthored withFrederick Kagan of theAmerican Enterprise Institute “Choosing Victory,” a 2007 study that served as a blueprint for the so-called “surge” in Iraq; and Dennis Showalter, a military historian.
ISW’s founding president isKimberly Kagan, a historian who is married to Frederick Kagan.[2] A non-exhaustive Right Web investigation of Form 990 U.S. tax records revealed nearly $700,000 in donations from charitable foundations during 2007-2009. Donations included nearly $180,000 from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a premier neoconservative advocacy group, as well as $60,000 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a right-wing foundation that has funded other militarist outfits like theMiddle East Media Research Institute(MEMRI) and Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum, earning it a spot among the top funders of the anti-Islamic discourse in the United States according to a 2011 reportby the Center for American Progress. The Marcus Foundation, which has also supported MEMRI, contributed another $250,000 to ISW during this period. (For a full list of Right Web’s findings, clickhere.) Institute for the Study of War – Profile – Right Web – Institute for Policy …  THATS RIGHT,ITS THE NEOCON,ZIONISTS,LIKUDNIKS,!!! 

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Treasonous syrian umbrella groups meet with neocons and zionsts,to dicuss Syrias way foward!

Shoah’s pages