Al-Jazeera Video: حديث الثورة.. تداعيات الضربة المحتملة على سوريا

Al-Jazeera Cartoon: A "Punitive" Strike

Uncle Sam: "Bombard, Kill, Destroy,  ..... but Don't Use Chemical Weapons!"

Life loses value in the Middle East

By Ramzy Baroud
Asia Times
 
"The death of innocent civilians in protests and wars, from Egypt to Syria and from Palestine to Iraq, has been cheapened to the point that lives simply become political and religious fodder for opposing factions. Damascus with its gory chemical warfare allegations is now the epicenter of the blame game, with reactions to the slaughter demonstrating the diminished sanctity of human life......

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic," Joseph Stalin, the communist leader of the Soviet Union once said. In another version, it was "...when thousands die, it's statistics." Either way, it seems as if there is a threshold number after which a tragedy seems less tragic......."

Al-Jazeera Video: احتمالات توجيه ضربة عسكرية للنظام السوري

The Broader Stakes of Syrian Crisis

By Ray McGovern

"August 28, 2013 "Information Clearing House - Amid the increased likelihood that President Barack Obama will cave in to pressure from foreign policy hawks to “Libya-ize” Syria and to accord Syrian President Bashar al-Assad the same treatment meted out to Libya’s Col. Muammar Gaddafi, the main question is WHY? Obviously, there is concern about the human rights catastrophe in Syria, but is the main target Syria’s main ally, Iran, as many suspect?
Surely, the objective has got to be more than simply giving Secretary of State John Kerry a chance to brag, in the manner of his predecessor, Hillary Clinton, regarding Gaddafi, “We came, we saw, he died.” And, there is little expectation – however many Cruise missiles the United States fires at Syrian targets in a fury over disputed claims about chemical weapons – that lives are likely to be saved.

So, what are Iran’s new leaders likely to see as the real driving force behind Obama’s felt need to acquiesce, again, in a march of folly? And why does it matter?

Iran’s leaders need not be paranoid to see themselves as a principal target of external meddling in Syria. While there seem to be as many interests being pursued – as there are rag-tag groups pursuing them – Tehran is not likely to see the common interests of Israel and the U.S. as very complicated. Both appear determined to exploit the chaotic duel among the thugs in Syria as an opportunity to deal a blow to Hezbollah and Hamas in Israel’s near-frontier and to isolate Iran still further, and perhaps even advance Israel’s ultimate aim of “regime change” in Tehran.

In the nearer term, are the neocons in Washington revving up to nip in the bud any unwelcome olive branches from the Iran’s new leaders as new talks on nuclear matters loom on the horizon?

The Not-So-Clean Break

“A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” a policy document prepared in 1996 for Benjamin Netanyahu by a study group led by American neocons, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, laid out a new approach to solving Israel’s principal security challenges. Essentially, the point was to shatter the frustrating cycle of negotiations with the Palestinians and instead force regime change on hostile states in the region, thus isolating Israel’s close-in adversaries.

Among the plan’s features was “the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting their possession of ‘weapons of mass destruction.’” The following “Clean-Break” paragraph is, no doubt, part of the discussion in Iran’s leadership councils:

“Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.”]

Against this background, what is Iran likely to think of the two-year old mantra of Hillary Clinton, repeated by Obama that “Assad Must Go?” Or what to think of Obama’s gratuitous pledge a half year later, on Super Bowl Sunday 2012, that the U.S. will “work in lockstep” with Israel regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Assuming they checked Webster’s, Iran’s leaders have taken note that one primary definition offered for “in lockstep” is: “in perfect, rigid, often mindless conformity or unison.”......"

Martin Rowson on Barack Obama and Syria – cartoon

Martin Rowson

The Guardian, Wednesday 28 August 2013

 

 

 

حول أسباب التدخل في سوريا وأهدافه

AN EXCELLENT ANALYSIS POSTED IN FULL

ياسر الزعاترة

من المؤكد أن استخدام الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد للسلاح الكيمياوي لم يكن غير ذريعة للتدخل العسكري الأميركي الغربي في سوريا، ولو كانت القضية الأخلاقية هي التي تحرك الغرب لكان قتل أكثر من مائة ألف سوري كافيا ليتحرك ضد النظام، فضلا عن أن يشمل ذلك عددا كبيرا من المذابح التي تشيب لهولها الولدان. واللافت هنا أن الغرب لم يكن يكتفي بعدم التدخل في سوريا، بل يضيف إلى ذلك بعدا بالغ الأهمية يتعلق بالضغط المستمر لمنع حصول الثوار على السلاح النوعي، وهو سلاح لو حصلوا عليه لكان بوسعهم أن يحسموا المعركة قبل أكثر من عام. ونكرر أننا نتحدث عن الضغط على الآخرين لمنع السلاح النوعي، وليس تزويد الثوار به مباشرة، كما يمكن أن يتبادر إلى ذهن البعض. وللبحث في السبب الكامن خلف هذا الموقف الغربي، فليس هناك سوى الموقف الإسرائيلي الذي يحرك الموقف الأميركي، وتبعا له أكثر المواقف الغربية، بل يؤثر على الموقف الروسي أيضا. ألم ترَ كيف امتنع بوتين عن تزويد النظام السوري بمنظومة صواريخ أس300 حين طلب منه نتنياهو ذلك؟ "لا أحد يمكنه التكهن بما يمكن أن يحدث من مفاجآت قد تتراجع احتمالاتها إذا أحيط الروس وإيران ومعهم النظام بحدود العملية، وهو ما سيفعله الأميركان على الأرجح " نعم، كان التحرك الجديد نتاج طلب إسرائيلي كما تقول أكثر الوقائع، وما كان لأوباما أن يتخذ القرار لو كان الصهاينة في الولايات المتحدة يريدون غير ذلك، ونعلم أن أوباما لم يكن أبدا متحمسا للضربة، ولا لأي تدخل عسكري جديد في المنطقة، لكن الأجواء الإعلامية التي صنعها له القوم في الداخل الأميركي هي التي اضطرته إلى ذلك. كان واضحا أن الاستنزاف الطويل هو الذي يشكل مصلحة إسرائيلية، وهو كان كذلك بالفعل، إذ دمَّر البلد واستنزف إيران وحزب الله وتركيا وربيع العرب، وخلق فتنة سنية شيعية كما نردد دائما، لكن تطور الوضع على الأرض خلال الأسابيع الأخيرة لم يكن مريحا بالنسبة لتل أبيب.   ورغم أن المعركة لم تكن في وارد الحسم القريب، إلا أن الثوار بدؤوا يتقدمون من جديد، ولو على نحو بطيء، فيما تتصاعد قوة الجماعات الجهادية، وهذا هو البعد الأهم، ما ينذر بمخاطر كبيرة في حال سقوط النظام وشيوع الفوضى، أو حتى سيطرة تلك الجماعات على مواقع أكبر، وهي التي تسيطر وبعض القوى الثورية على حوالي 60% من التراب السوري. هناك بالطبع حاجة الإسرائيليين إلى تدمير بعض مخزونات الأسلحة الكيمياوية خشية وقوعها لاحقا بيد جماعات لا يمكن السيطرة عليها، كما يرددون دائما، وهو ما تعجز تل أبيب عن القيام به منفردة، ليس فقط بسبب التداعيات البيئية المحتملة لذلك، بل ربما خشية ردة فعل من قبل النظام، وردود الفعل الدولية. وإلى جانب الأسلحة الكيمياوية، هناك مخزون الصواريخ بعيدة المدى ومنصات إطلاقها، فضلا عن الصواريخ المضادة للطيران. من هنا تبدو الضربة شكلا من أشكال الخدمة للصهاينة في الاتجاهين (النظام والجماعات الجهادية)، إذ سيحدد الإسرائيليون كما بدا واضحا "بنك الأهداف" الذي يريدون التخلص منه، وبالطبع لأنهم المصدر شبه الكامل للمعلومات الاستخبارية بالنسبة للطرف الأميركي والغربي. أما الذي لا يقل أهمية، فيتمثل في استهداف بعض مواقع القوى الجهادية بهدف إضعافها، لاسيما إذا شملت العملية تقدما لبعض القوى الأخرى من جهة الشمال والجنوب، بحيث تسيطر على معظم المواقع التابعة للثوار، أو التي تخضع عمليا لسيطرتهم، أو سيسيطرون عليها بعد ذلك. "من يحدد بداية المعركة قد لا يحدد نهايتها ونتائجها بالضرورة، إذ يمكن لمفاجآت معينة أن تغير المسار، لاسيما إذا رد النظام أو بعض حلفائه على نحو يستفز الطرف الصهيوني " هنا يأتي السؤال المتعلق بإسقاط النظام، أو بحدود الضربة إذا شئنا الدقة، وهنا نقول إن متابعة الصحافة الإسرائيلية، وبعض ردود الفعل والإشارات الرسمية، لا زالت تؤكد وجود إجماع على أن الضربة العسكرية لن تقترب من حدود إسقاط النظام في دمشق، والأهم من ذلك أنها ستكون مجرد "عقوبة" و"ردع" كما ذهب أحد المحللين الإسرائيليين، وهما نفس المصطلحين اللذين نقلتهما واشنطن بوست عن مسؤولين أميركيين، لكأنهم يقرؤون من كتاب واحد! بل إن بعض المصادر الإسرائيلية لم تتردد في وصف الضربة بأنها "رمزية". هنا تأتي المرحلة التالية من العملية، فإما أن يكتفي الإسرائيليون بالجزء الذي ذكرنا، ويدعموا بعد ذلك استمرار لعبة الاستنزاف التي كانوا مرتاحين لها.   أما الخيار الثاني، فهو أن يميل الإسرائيليون وتبعا لهم الأميركان إلى مجاملة القوى الأخرى المؤيدة للعملية والممولة لها، أعني الدول العربية، ويذهبوا نحو تغيير ميزان القوى شيئا ما بحيث يدفعون نحو مفاوضات مع الروس يتوصلون من خلالها إلى حل سياسي يضع البلد في ظل حكومة جديدة خاضعة للسيطرة ولن تشكل إزعاجا، لا للممولين والداعمين العرب (عرب الاعتدال المناهضين للثورات وربيع العرب تحديدا)، ولا للكيان الصهيوني، بل إن حكومة كهذه ستكون ذات فائدة كبيرة للكيان الصهيوني، إذ ستدعم مسار المفاوضات الجارية حاليا، والتي يمكن أن تفضي إلى تسوية مرحلية أو نهائية تريحه إلى حد كبير. هذه هي السيناريوهات الأكثر ترجيحا، ويبقى أن أحدا لا يمكنه التكهن بما يمكن أن يحدث من مفاجآت، وهي مفاجآت قد تتراجع احتمالاتها إذا أحيط الروس وإيران ومعهم النظام بحدود العملية، وهو ما سيفعله الأميركان على الأرجح، وكذا الإسرائيليون الذين يتمتعون بعلاقة ممتازة مع موسكو. ولا قيمة هنا لكل التهديدات التي يطلقها الإيرانيون وحلفاؤهم، لاسيما أنهم يطلقونها لكي لا يفكر الأميركان في تطوير العملية نحو إسقاط النظام. أما تهديدات النظام فلا تبدو مثيرة بالنسبة للبعض، وقد نقلت القناة العاشرة في التلفزيون الإسرائيلي عن خبراء عسكريين قولهم إن النظام السوري بعد عامين من الحرب قد استُنزف ولن يتمكن من فعل الكثير كرد على الهجمات. "لا يمكن أن نؤيد الضربة لأن سببها الصهاينة، ولا تمت بصلة لمصلحة الشعب السوري، لكننا في المقابل نتفهم ترحيب السوريين بها تحت وطأة القتل اليومي والمذابح " على أن من يحدد بداية المعركة قد لا يحدد نهايتها ونتائجها بالضرورة، إذ يمكن لمفاجآت معينة أن تغير المسار، لاسيما إذا رد النظام أو بعض حلفائه على نحو يستفز الطرف الصهيوني، أو دخلت على الخط مفاجآت أخرى في حال جرى استهداف الجماعات الجهادية. خلاصة القول هي أننا إزاء عملية لا يمكن أن نؤيدها، ليس بسبب موقفنا المبدئي الرافض للتدخل الدولي، بل لأنها عملية سببها الصهاينة، وهم أنفسهم من خططوا لها، وحددوا بنك الأهداف وقدموا المعلومات الاستخبارية، وهي لا تمت بصلة إلى مصلحة الشعب السوري، لكننا في المقابل لا نملك إلا أن نتفهم ترحيب السوريين بها تحت وطأة القتل اليومي والمذابح. ويبقى أن الشعب السوري وقواه الثورية ليسوا في وارد الاستسلام مهما طالت الحرب وكثرت التضحيات، وما يخطط له الآخرون لن يكون قدرا بالضرورة، فللشعب إرادته الحرة أيضا.

أمن السلطة يقمع مسيرة في رام الله ضد المفاوضات والتنسيق الأمني

عــ48ــرب

قمعت قوات مكافحة الشغب التابعة للسلطة الفلسطينية، مساء اليوم، مسيرة خرجت في مدينة رام الله رفضًا للمفاوضات والتنسيق الأمني، ما أسفر عن وقوع بعض الإصابات في صفوف المتظاهرين.

وكانت المسيرة  قد انطلقت من دوار الساعة في رام الله بمشاركة ما يقارب الـ 300 متظاهر، وسارت شارع الإرسال باتجاه مقر الرئاسة الفلسطينية "المقاطعة"، وقد حمل المشاركون فيها نعوشًا رمزية لشهداء مخيم قلنديا الذين سقطوا برصاص جيش الاحتلال صباح الاثنين الماضي، ونعشا رمزيا رابعا للقتيل أمجد عودة، الذي سقط يوم أمس برصاص جهاز الأمن الوقائي في مخيم عسكر. 

ضد المفاوضات ومطالبة بإسقاط أوسلو

وهتف المتظاهرون ضد المفاوضات، مطالبين بإسقاط اتفاقية أوسلو، وكانت هناك هتافات من بعض المشاركين تطالب بإسقاط الرئيس محمود عباس.

وقد اعترضت قوات مكافحة الشغب المسيرة بالقرب من قصر الحمراء، وحصل تدافع بين المتظاهرين وأفراد الأمن، ليقوم أفراد الأمن بالاعتداء بعد ذلك بالهراوات على المتظاهرين، وقد أصيب نتيجة ذلك 4 شبان، 3 منهم أصيبوا بالوجه، عرف منهم الناشط الشبابي باسل الأعرج. 

اعتداء عنيف

بدوره، اتهم الشيخ خضر عدنان،  الذي كان مشاركًا في المسيرة عبر "فضائية فلسطين اليوم"، قوة مكافحة الشغب بضرب المتظاهرين بشكل عنيف.

وذكر شهود عيان أن قوات الشرطة الفلسطينية قامت بتوزيع زجاجات المياه على المتظاهرين في محاولة لثنيهم عن إكمال مسيرتهم، إلا أنهم رفضوها.

وأفاد مشاركون في المسيرة أن قوات أمنية بلباس مدني تواجدت في المكان، وأن أفرادها قاموا باعتقال أحد المتظاهرين.

 

THE DAYTON FORCES DOING THEIR JOB AS SUBCONTRACTORS OF ISRAEL

As Strikes on Syria Loom, Is U.S. Ignoring a Diplomatic Track That Could Prevent More Violence?

Democracy Now!

"Britain is set to introduce a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing military action in Syria as the United States and allies gear up for expected strikes on the Assad regime. The resolution condemns the Syrian government for allegedly using chemical weapons and authorizes "necessary measures for protecting civilians." Russia and China are expected to issue a veto, raising the prospect that a U.S.-led bombing could come through NATO. The Obama administration says military action in Syria would be aimed at responding to chemical attacks, not seeking regime change, but critics say similar claims were made at the outset of the NATO intervention in Libya. "There is no military solution," says Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies. "Extra assaults from the United States are going to make the situation worse, put Syrian civilians at greater risk, and not provide protection."...."

Syria and Egypt

Rick McKee, Cagle Cartoons, The Augusta Chronicle

Real News Video: Bennis: There is No Military Solution to Syria

Phyllis Bennis: US policy should emphasize direct diplomacy to negotiate a ceasefire with all sides including Syrian President Bashar Assad, but direct military intervention will lead to more bloodshed and Obama fighting on the side of an Al-Qaeda affiliated organization

 

There are no easy answers in Syria

By Rami G. Khouri

The Daily Star "The vigorous debate about whether an American-led military strike against Syria would be appropriate and effective is heartbreaking, for it is agonizing to watch as another important Arab country follows the self-destructive trajectory of others before it, such as Iraq and Libya. These countries failed to achieve their full potential, and instead allowed themselves to pursue cruel and criminal policies that led to their destruction at the hands of international armies that worked in conjunction with the country’s own people who had risen in revolt to overthrow their hated regimes. Syria seems destined to join that list, and helplessly watching this on television is painful beyond description. Only the pain of the Syrian people themselves is more acute than that of other Arabs who grieve for the combination of incompetence, cruelty and criminality that we have seen in Syria for so many years. We have witnessed all this before, in Iraq and Libya, but also in different forms in Sudan, Algeria, Egypt and other Arab countries whose immense human and natural wealth was squandered and stolen by corrupt military men who proved to be both fickle soldiers and lousy governors. The pinnacle of their stupidity and reckless irresponsibility was to carry out such cruel attacks against their own people, after mistreating them for decades, so that the citizenry rose up in revolt and foreign powers felt forced to intervene to bring an end to the cruelty and to the regimes themselves. The broad lines of this legacy are being repeated in Syria, with only some minor differences in the details, along with one major strategic difference: Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and perhaps some other groups will fight hard to keep President Bashar Assad’s regime in power, even if it only controls some isolated strips of land and a few cities and air bases. The consequences of attacking Syria, therefore, are far more substantial than was the case in bringing down, threatening or sanctioning Libya, Iraq, Sudan or even Iran. We continue to witness the ripples of the Anglo-American-led war on Iraq a decade ago, especially in the form of a fractured and polarized Iraqi state, and organized Salafist militancy and terrorism (with Al-Qaeda links) that plague Iraq and other countries in the region, especially Syria and Lebanon. An American-led military strike against Syria would probably generate equally problematic consequences, including counterattacks by Syrians and various parties against targets from those countries that would join the assault on Syria. It is also not clear that a few isolated, pinpoint punitive missile attacks against a handful of targets in Syria would have the intended effect of making the Assad regime change its tactics in attacking its own people in order to remain in power. Previous experiences around the region indicate that such punitive or deterrent strikes do not force any significant change in behavior by the target government. Only actions such as a ground invasion or the imposition of a no-fly zone achieve that aim, and there is no serious talk of those kinds of moves yet. Foreign attacks against Assad without a firm U.N. Security Council mandate would likely make the Syrian regime more defiant and reckless, and the Russians more recalcitrant, because it would escalate accusations that the Assad regime has been the target of a foreign conspiracy to bring it down. We will also once again – and rightly – hear many in the region ask why the West so forcefully – and rightly – enforces international norms in Syria, but winks at the colonization, annexations, sieges, mass incarcerations, use of banned munitions and other criminal deeds of the Israeli government? So, a military attack against Syria will make many people and governments feel good about taking firm action to punish the Assad regime and deter it and others from using chemical weapons. It should be clear, though, that any strikes now will likely have to be the first steps in a wider effort to bring down the Assad regime. This expanded campaign would likely include no-fly zones and significantly enhanced delivery of advanced weapons to the opposition forces, with the aim of militarily defeating the regime. The problem with this scenario is that it opens up a wild set of possible post-Assad developments, given the scores of major but disunited armed opposition groups in the country with secular, nationalist and Islamist characters, and the sharp sectarian polarization that has occurred in the last 30 months of war. A post-Assad transition 18 months ago could have been relatively smooth, but today it can only be chaotic, protracted, violent and ugly. It will also infect other countries around Syria, creating more refugees, terrorism, extremism and despair. There are no easy answers in Syria, and no happy outcomes. The Syrian state has been disintegrating for the past 30 months. It has never shown any real signs of being able to reform itself under the Assad leadership. Thus, it has reached the current point of inevitable international and regional Arab action to smash it once and for all, with incalculable consequences to follow."

Accountability needed for killings in Israeli raid on West Bank refugee camp

"Evidence strongly suggests that three men who were shot dead with live ammunition during an arrest raid on a Palestinian refugee camp in the occupied West Bank on Monday were unlawfully killed by Israeli forces, Amnesty International said today. 

Another 19 people, including six children, were injured by live ammunition fired during the raid on Qalandia refugee camp, the highest number of casualties in a single Israeli operation in the West Bank this year. Five of those wounded, including three children, had injuries to the upper body.

“The intentional lethal use of firearms – such as firing live ammunition at individuals’ upper bodies – is only permissible if strictly unavoidable to protect life,” said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Programme Director at Amnesty International.

“The loss of life and high number of casualties in this incident raise serious questions as to whether heavily armoured Israeli troops acted according to international standards.”

Rubin ‘Abd al-Rahman Zayed, a 34-year-old employee of UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, was among those killed when he was shot in the chest by Israeli troops from a military vehicle as it was exiting the camp after the raid......"

Obama's "Red Line," by Emad Hajjaj

On Interventions and the Syrian Revolution

by DarthNader

The Syrian revolution is a revolution that began as a struggle for self-determination. The Syrian people demanded to determine their own destiny. And, for more than two years, against all odds, and in the face of massive repression and destruction from the Assad regime, they persevered.

In the course of the revolutionary process, many other actors have also appeared on the scene to work against the struggle for self-determination. Iran and its militias, with the backing of Russia, came to the aid of the regime, to ensure the Syrian people would not be given this right. The jihadis of the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham and others, under the guise of “fighting the Assad regime,” worked against this right as well. And I feel the same way about any Western intervention.

Some would argue that we have come a long way from that, that it isn’t even about self-determination anymore, but rather, simply stopping the killing. This is a position I cannot support. If it was simply about stopping the killing, then I would’ve supported the jihadis when they came in, because, no one can deny, they were the best armed and the best equipped to challenge the Assad regime. But I didn’t, and many others didn’t, because we knew that despite their ability to challenge the regime, that they did not share the goals of the Syrian people. They wanted to control the Syrian people, and stifle their ability to determine their own destiny. Because of this, they were counter-revolutionaries, even if they were fighting against the regime.

And now in the face of a possible Western intervention in Syria, I hold the same position. Many would say I’m being ideological, and that I should just focus on stopping the killing; but those people are ignoring that, even on pragmatic terms and within their own line of reasoning, their argument holds no sway, after repeated US insistence that “these will only be punitive strikes” and they “do not intend to topple the regime.” What indication is there that these strikes will do anything to stop the killing, or “solve” the Syrian crisis?

I don’t care about sovereignty. Syria has become a land for everyone but Syrians nowadays. The myth of Syrian sovereignty is not why I oppose Western intervention. Neither is the prospect of the destruction of Syria, for it has already been destroyed by this criminal regime. I oppose Western intervention because it will work against the struggle for self-determination, that is, against the Syrian revolution.

Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. I have no doubt about this. And this could have been prevented if the Syrian resistance was actually given weapons that could have tilted the balance against the regime. But foreign powers sat on their hands, not wanting Assad to win, but not wanting the resistance to win either. They couldn’t give weapons to the Syrian people to defend themselves, they said, who knows whose hands they might end up in? They might accidentally end up in, say, the hands of Syrians who wanted to determine their own destiny despite foreign interests!

So we’ve come full circle. No one armed the Syrian resistance, so they were killed by the regime, or forced to put up with jihadi infiltration. So Assad used chemical weapons against the Syrians, and the West wants to respond to teach Assad a lesson, a response that still guarantees that Syrians have no say in the matter of their future. And the regime will probably live through any “punitive” Western intervention, and the killing will probably not stop.

But despite all that, the Syrian revolution, and, at its heart, the Syrian people’s struggle for liberation and to determine their own destiny, will live on.

Syria's elite join compatriots to flee country fearing western air strike

Well-heeled of Damascus also quit for safety across border in Lebanon as expectation of west's intervention grows

Martin Chulov in Beirut, and Mona Mahmood

The Guardian, Tuesday 27 August 2013

"The border crossing between Syria and Lebanon was frantic on Tuesday, as it had been for many months. But, unusually, amid the hordes of people at passport control on the Lebanese side of the Masnaa crossing were queues of well-heeled Syrians – types not often on the move even well into this third year of war.

Well dressed, with front-of-the-line privileges, for them the crossing was far simpler than for the crowds standing behind.
"Some even use the military lane," said a Lebanese border guard, referring to the fast "no-questions" route open to VIPs, from either side, and to Hezbollah.
Rumours of an imminent air attack launched by Britain, the US, France and even Turkey is all around the Syrian capital, Damascus, those crossing the border said. So too is a sense that this time, Syria's foes are not bluffing......

The Masnaa main crossing has remained open since Syria's troubles began in 2011 and has been one of the few remaining outlets for Damascenes seeking respite in Lebanon or beyond.
Much of the middle class of the Syrian capital has gradually left as the war has ground on. But now it is the elite that is quitting. Several well-known businessmen who crossed the border on Monday said they planned to ride out any air strikes in the Lebanese mountains.
Another man, who owned a financial service business and had worked closely with Rami Makhlouf, the first cousin of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, said he had given up on Damascus for now and would stay outside the country until the war had been resolved one way or another.

"They will bomb the airfields and the state buildings," he said. "They can bomb what they want. There isn't much left of the country, and that's the reality."
The relative safety of central Damascus has been a focus of the Syrian regime's attempt to project an air of normality. There, unlike the ravaged outskirts or empty marketplaces closer in, restaurants have stayed open and a cafe culture still exists. But even in this security bubble, where all key institutions of state reside, an attack is seen as inevitable.
"My uncle is a senior officer," said Abur Rahman. "He is one of the decision-makers, and this week the only decision he's making is where to take shelter from the American planes."
Elsewhere in the city there is little doubt that a new phase of the war is drawing near, according to people contacted by the Guardian via Skype. People are stockpiling whatever food they can find, taping their windows, and preparing candles and water for an air war they fear could roll on for weeks. Syria's education system has all but ground to a halt, with childcare facilities and most secondary schools in Damascus shut down. Many primary schools, however, remain open.
Assad Ali, 24, a computer worker, said the expected attack was being welcomed in some quarters. Despite having had no trouble from the Syrian military or the dreaded state security services, he thought the war needed to end.
He said: "We expect it soon. We will be so happy if the US and UK attack Syria. I believe the US and British army will attack all the regime's defences as well as some positions for the FSA [Free Syrian Army]. I think any attack launched by the US and UK will be for the interest of the Syrian people. Any new regime coming to Syria won't be worse than what we are going through now.
"All those who are in support of the regime say that they will sacrifice themselves for Syria and Assad. But they all will run away at the first bullet. We expect the soldiers to flee with the first US rocket landing on Syrian land.
"We can feel that the soldiers are in a state of high alert and fear. We won't keep any weapon in our house. As long as the UN inspection teams are still in Syria, the attack won't happen. Only [it could] when they leave."
Ziyad, a man in his 50s, told Reuters: "The big fear is that they'll make the same mistakes they made in Libya and Iraq. They'll hit civilian targets, and then they'll cry that it was by mistake – but we'll get killed in the thousands."
Haitham, a retired civil servant who lives in the northern neighbourhood of Hameh and opposes the Assad government, said: "If I could I'd leave town for a week until this is over. It'll be only a matter of days.""

 

Is it Time Yet? I don't Think so.

Cartoon by Ali Farzat

Egypt's Revolution, by Khalil Bendib

Obama and Aid to Egypt

Daryl Cagle, CagleCartoons.com

The Prince: Meet the Man Who Co-Opted Democracy in the Middle East

By Robert Scheer

"Now that the Arab Spring has been turned into a totally owned subsidiary of the Saudi royal family, it is time to honor Prince Bandar bin Sultan as the most effective Machiavellian politician of the modern era. How slick for this head of the Saudi Intelligence Agency to finance the Egyptian military’s crushing of that nation’s first-ever democratic election while being the main source of arms for pro-al-Qaida insurgents in Syria. 

Just consider that a mere 12 years ago, this same Bandar was a beleaguered Saudi ambassador in Washington, a post he held from 1983 to 2005, attempting to explain his nation’s connection to 15 Saudi nationals who had somehow secured legal documents to enter the U.S. and succeeded in hijacking planes that blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. How awkward given that the Saudi ambassador had been advocating that U.S. officials go easy on the Taliban government in Afghanistan, where those attacks incubated......

That big chunk of cash, $12 billion from the UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, is not aimed at stopping terrorism, if by that we mean the sort of attacks associated with 9/11 and al-Qaida. As the Journal story reminded, “A generation ago, Prince Bandar, in a role foreshadowing his current one on behalf of Syrian opposition, helped the CIA arm the Afghan rebels who were resisting occupation by Soviet troops.” That’s how the Saudi bin Laden came to be in Afghanistan. Earlier, Bandar had been involved in the CIA’s effort to deliver arms from Iran to the Contras in Nicaragua.

Can you imagine the blowback from the prince’s current efforts to get the United States to once again meddle madly in a region that we don’t care to comprehend? Why not ask Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham who, according to the Journal, met with Bandar in September to urge the Saudis to provide the Syrian rebels with more potent weapons. 

Or ask Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who was among those courted by Bandar. As the Journal described the Saudi junket by members of the congressional intelligence committees, “They [the Saudis] arranged a trip for committee leaders to Riyadh, where Prince Bandar laid out the Saudi strategy. It was a reunion of sorts, officials said, with Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) warmly scolding Prince Bandar about his smoking.”....."


Watch Bandar:

Bandar: We Are Corrupt; So What!

www.theguardian.com/news/video/2007/jun/07/bae.files.bandar