The ICC intends to violate the decision of the Security Council and try Bachar el-Assad

Everyone believed it to be impossible for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to try the Syrians, since China and Russia exercised their vetos against a Western draft resolution to do so. But no! A piece of legal sleight of hand may make it possible to dodge the decision of the Security Council. The Court hopes to incriminate President Bachar el-Assad, not for the murder of Rafic Hariri (that lie fizzled out some time ago), but for « crimes against humanity ».

JPEG - 37 kb

In 1998, the United Nations convened the Conference of Rome, which created the International Criminal Court (ICC). Of course, the aim was not to to create a super-Tribunal which would legislate, on behalf of the member-states, in the name of humanity, but to possess a tool capable of judging criminals at the end of a war, when the institutions of the vanquished are diminished or destroyed.

Thus the statutes of the Court emphasise that it may only accept a case with the agreement of the local Justice system. But these same statutes also state
- that it may take on the case of a crime committed by a citizen of a non-member country, inside a member country, in place of the victim country;
- as well as a crime committed by anyone, anywhere, as long as it is handled by the Security Council of the United Nations.

In both cases, the Rome Statute, developed within the UNO and signed by a few States, may apply to all States, even that of non-members.

This why the three greatest world States – China, the United States and Russia – refused to ratify it. They saw in it – quite rightly – a violation of the principle of sovereignty, formulated in the 18th century by the legal expert Emer de Vattel, and voted into action by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [1].

Last September, the ICC declared admissible a complaint against the authorities of Myanmar, despite the fact that it is a non-member, because it was said to have committed atrocities which provoked the exodus of the Rohingyas. The Court considered itself competent because the victims fled to Bangladesh, which is a signatory of the Rome Statute [2].

On this model, a family of the Muslim Brotherhood recently filed a complaint against President Bachar el-Assad and the Syrian representatives, although the Syrian Arab Republic is not a member of the Court. The family claims to have witnessed various atrocities and was obliged to flee to Jordan. The Court would have to ignore the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is the heart of Islamist terrorism and that it is listed as a terrorist organisation in many countries. Logically, though, it could declare itself competent, since Jordan is a signatory of the Rome Statute.

However, on 22 May 2014, when the Western powers and their Gulf allies sought to engage the ICC via the Security Council in the context of the events in Syria, both China and Russia exercised their veto [3].

However, it makes no difference – the Court has acquired autonomy. It no longer pretends to help states render Justice, but has proclaimed itself the defender of humanity against states.

It is important to understand what is happening – over the last few years, the ICC has mainly been financed by the European Union, and has drawn up its own Code. Until 2016, it tried only African defendants under its own laws, and found them all guilty [4]. After a vote by its Parliament, Burundi then decided to withdraw from the Rome Statute, on the motive that the ICC had become « an instrument of pressure on the governments of poor countries, or a means of destabilising them according to the desires of the great powers ». Three other states then followed – Gambia, the Philippines and South Africa. However, South Africa and Gambia changed their minds after Gambian Fatou Bensouda was named as the new Prosecutor General for the Court.

Nonetheless, until the nomination of Madame Bensouda, the ICC offered none of the guarantees expected from an impartial legal system. Thus, during NATO’s attack on Libya in violation of the Security Council’s mandate, the « proof » tabled by the General Prosecutor, Argentinian Luis Moreno Ocampo, against Mouamar Kadhafi, his son Saïf el Islam and his brother-in-law Abdallah Al-Senoussi, was limited entirely to Press cuttings from the invading states. Worse – when NATO bombed Tripoli, the prosecutor declared that Saïf el-Islam Kadhafi had been arrested by the Western powers and that his bureau was organising his deferment to The Hague. By doing so, he was guilty of a bare-faced lie, and demoralised the Libyans to the point where they no longer resisted the aggression of NATO. In reality, Saïf el-Islam was safe and sound in the cellars of the Hotel Rixos, where I was myself.

The same Luis Moreno Ocampo raped a female journalist in his Court office, but escaped Justice only by his immunity as an international prosecutor [5]. Corrupt, he demanded secret payments for prosecuting individuals who were marked for elimination [6]. The Prosecutor’s secret bank accounts were later revealed by journalistic investigations in Panama and the Virgin Islands [7]. Luis Moreno Ocampo has never had to answer to these charges.

Certainly, his successor, Fatou Bensouda, is more presentable. But the structure has not changed. The magistrates of the Court are so aware of this that on 15 January 2019, they revolted and acquitted Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Ble Goude – two defendants whose alleged « crimes against humanity » had served to justify the « régime change » imposed by France in the Ivory Coast. It was the first time that the ICC abandoned the political role with which the Europeans had tasked them.

On 29 July 2015, the Western powers attempted to pass a resolution at the Security Council intended to divest the Ukrainian Justice of the destruction of flight MH17 and transfer the affair to the ICC. This was a strategy aimed at preparing the indictment of President Vladimir Putin, although Russia is not a signatory of the Rome Statute. The question here is not to determine who destroyed the plane, but to observe the political manipulation operated by the international penal Justice system. Russia exercised its veto against the Western resolution.

The Syrian President, Bachar el-Assad, will therefore probably be tried in absentia by the ICC. He will appear in abstensia with other Syrian representatives whose names have not yet been released. He is used to this. In 2005, he was accused of ordering the assassination of ex-Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, this time with the complicity of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud. An international enquiry was led by a German/ Israeli team [8]. Then a pseudo-tribunal was created on the initiative of the US ambassador US to Beirut, Jeffrey Feltman. A treaty was signed by General Secretary of the UNO – with the approbation of the Security Council – and by the new Lebanese Prime Minister – without the authorisation of either the government or the Parliament.

At that time, the West had persuaded itself of the guilt of the accused. Alas! After a year of sensational accusations, Prosecutor Detlev Mehlis resigned in the midst of a shattering scandal – the witnesses on whom he relied were imposters paid by his friends. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon pursued its malicious work by accusing Hezbollah this time, although this organisation published recordings of an Israëli drone over the site of the assassination. The Tribunal persisted in pretending that Rafic Hariri had been killed by the explosion of a van, despite the fact that the forensic records were formal – this was impossible [9]. They spent millions of dollars reproducing the scene and attempting to validate their theory, but in vain. They are therefore working on a thesis that everyone knows is false.

The Syrian Arab Republic fought for eight years in order to preserve its sovereignty. It should therefore not allow its representatives to go to The Hague. But it can still contest the validity of the procedure.

It was initiated by the British lawyer for the plaintiffs, Rodney Dixon, known for also being the lawyer for Qatar against Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. He had a long experience of « international Justice » since he had been one of the councillors for Canadian Louise Arbour, the General Prosecutor for international Justice for ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda – two institutions which failed to find the truth about the crimes with which they were tasked.

Mr. Dixon had already declared that he intended to pursue the Syrian leaders for « crimes against humanity ». He based his case on the Caesar Report [10]; a document made public by Qatar, via the London cabinet Carter-Ruck, on 20 January 2014, two days before the peace negotiations of Geneva 2. The report was a collection of 55,000 photographs of torture victims taken by a photographer of the Syrian Arab Army. According to the accusation, they represented the victims of the « régime », while according to the Syrian government, they were on the contrary photos of the the victims of the jihadists. The report was authenticated against Syria by three international prosecutors with a shameful past, since they had worked at the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Penal Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia.

- Sir Desmond Lorenz de Silva is the author of a report ordered by the British Prime Minister concerning the death of an Irish lawyer, qualified as « shameful » by the victim’s family. He recognised the responsibility of the authorities, which no-one could hide any longer, but blurred the proof against the Crown.
- Sir Geoffrey Nice made himself famous by pursuing Slobodan Milošević for two years, without ever managing to find the slightest proof of crimes against humanity. The trial ended with the death of the prisoner, who, according to Russia, was assassinated in prison.
- David M. Crane is an ex-representative of the CIA and the DIA who, since the beginning of the war against Syria, has been running a programme designed to drag Bachar el-Assad in front of any special international court at all for any reason at all.

In September 2012, the US State Department, on an idea by ambassador Jeffrey Feltman who had become an assistant to the Secretary of State, created an association, the Syria Justice and Accountability Centre (SJAC), tasked with collecting proof of the crimes of the Syrian government. He financed it to the tune of 5 million dollars annually, the rest being at the charge of the « Friends of Syria », especially Morocco. Two years later, Washington ended their use of this tool. However, ambassador Jeffrey Feltman, who had since become the Director of Political Affairs for the UNO, relaunched the SJAC, this time with European funds.

There exists no control of the ICC, even when its general prosecutor is a corrupt criminal. The Court is reserved exclusively for the service of those who pay for it – the European Union.

In the past, war was considered as a means of conquest or defence. Today, on the contrary, we like to pretend that it is an illegal act in itself, even in legitimate defence. Thus, the party that decides on war must not declare it, but establish the proof a posteriori that by committing the crime of war, it is defending Good. Which the victor can always claim.

Translation
Pete Kimberley

Source
Mint Press News (USA)

Advertisements

نبيه بري العربيّ الفلسطينيّ

مارس 5, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– شخصياً لم أتمالك نفسي من الشعور بتيار كهربائي يجتاحني وأنا أسمع دولة رئيس مجلس النواب اللبناني نبيه بري يصدح بصوته الرخيم وتعابيره الجزلة، المكتوب والارتجالي منها، في الكلمة الرسميّة وفي مناقشات البيان الختامي في مؤتمر الاتحاد البرلماني العربي. هو شعور بالفخر ممزوج بشعور بالفرح والثقة بأن دنيانا العربية لا تزال بخير، وأن فلسطين ليست وحيدة، وأن كلمة الحق هي العليا، وأن هناك رجالاً رجالاً بهمم قمم، تنوء تحت حملها الجبال فلا تكلّ ولا تملّ، ولا تقرأ إلا في كتاب الحق، بينما يقرأ ما يتوهّمه الآخرون في كتاب القوة، وقد صار الحق بذاته قوة وصارت له قوة، ويعرف من يعرف أن المقاومة التي يزلزل ذكرها حسابات كبار القادة في كبريات عواصم العالم، قد ولدت في رحم هذا الإيمان، وقد كان لهذا الإنسان القمّة والهمّة البصمة الأساسية والتأسيسية.

– يتحدّث كثيرون ويتفلسفون ويغمزون بعيونهم، فيغمضون واحدة ويفتحون أخرى في الحديث عن علاقة الرئيس نبيه بري بسورية، سورية الرئيس حافظ الأسد، وسورية الرئيس بشار الأسد، ويوهمون لكنهم في الحقيقة يتوهّمون، أنّهم يعرفون ما لا يعرفه الآخرون عن مشاكل تمرّ بها هذه العلاقة، فيتلو النبيه على مسامعهم جميعاً مزاميره، «لا نستطيع الشعور بالمسؤولية تجاه الفلسطينيين وفلسطين ونحن نعزل سورية»، فسورية كانت ولا تزال وستبقى في العقل الذي نظر وينظر من خلاله نبيه بري المناضل والمقاوم، قبل رئيس المجلس النيابي، للمشهد العربي، حيث هي منذ البدايات إلى نهاية النهايات، حيث لا نهايات، فهي قلب العروبة النابض وهي قلعة المقاومة العصيّة على العصر والكسر معاً، وهي عرين أسود لا تُضام، ويكفي أنها القلب في بلاد الشام، وهو لمن لا يعرفون أو لا يعترفون، مع سورية ظالمة أو مظلومة، يجادلها وهي في عزّ سطوتها، حيث لا يجرؤ الكثيرون، من موقع البحث عن مكامن القوة العربيّة وتعزيزها، ونقاط الضعف والوهن وتلافيها، كشريك في الغرم، وليس كباحث عن شراكة في الغنم، لكنه عندما تتعرّض سورية للضيم ويأتي زمن الضراء، يشهر قلبه ويقاتل بشغافه كي تبقى سورية القوية القادرة الحاضرة، وهي مرتع الأحلام وساحة البطولات، وموطن الشهامة والوفاء، يعرفها وتعرفه، كما يعرف السيف غمده، وتعرف القلعة حراسها، وتعرف الساحة فرسانها، وفي الميدان يسرج برّي صهوة جواده ويقتحم، حيث لا يصل إلا صوته، فيُشهره عالياً، سورية مصدر فخركم وبدونها أنتم ذلّ وهوان، فحافظوا على بقايا الشهامة العربية المتهالكة، واحتموا بها، سورية لا تحتاج حمايتكم بل أنتم مَن يحتاجها، علامة أمة لم تُهزَم.

– عندما يتحدّث الرئيس نبيه بري عن فلسطين في خطابه الرسمي فهو لا يفاجئ، لأننا نعرفه، وليس لأن المقال لا يناسب المقام، لكن عندما يناقش بعفويته وتدفقه نصوص البيان الختامي، مداخلاً ومتدخّلاً، تشعر برغبة أن تقفز من وراء الشاشة لتطبع قبلة فخر على جبينه، فيناقش رئيس الجلسة عند فقرة التطبيع، ويقول «هذا البند هو كل المؤتمر سيدي الرئيس»، «لأن التطبيع يعني إزالة الحاجز النفسي بين العرب وبين العدو الإسرائيلي، دون إعطاء أية حقوق للفلسطينيين، نحن نقول ذلك وأمامنا مؤتمر القمة، وأحدد مؤتمر القمة في 2002 الذي دعت إليه المملكة العربية السعودية، فإذا سمحتم تنبّهوا أن هذا البند هو كل المؤتمر»، وعندما يستجيب المؤتمرون لإضافة الفقرة المقترحة برفض التطبيع، وفيها الدعوة لقيام دولة فلسطينية على الأراضي المحتلة العام 67 وعاصمتها القدس، يتذاكى المتزحلقون لنيل الرضى الأميركي بتحفيف مضمون النص، فيقترحون إضافة الشرقية إلى القدس، لتصير القدس الشرقية، فيهمّ بري إلى جواده مجدداً في جولة جديدة يكسبها، فيقول، أنا أقول القدس الشريف ويتلفت حوله منتظراً، ولما يأتي رد متفذلك، يلاحقه بكلمة قائلاً، لماذا نعطي بالمجان، طالما هم لا يعترفون فلماذا نتسابق على الاعتراف؟ ويمسك كلمة ويكتب، ويقول بصوت عالٍ: «نعم، القدس الشريف وينتهي الأمر».

– القضية ليست بأهميّة مصيريّة تقريريّة يتمتع بها مؤتمر الاتحاد البرلماني العربي، بل بأهمية نسخة من المواجهة التي تدار ويتم ربحها، من منصة يسيطر عليها وعلى التفكير فيها، عقل الهزيمة، فيطغى صوت الحق والحقيقة رغم قلة العدد والمال، حيث يجتمع المال والعدد، لأن المهابة التي تجلل صاحب الكلام، فيحضر التاريخ المليء بالنبض العربي الأصيل، فهو نور مبهر، ونصل صقيل، وصوت جهير، وهو في اللغة حقل مزهر، وفي الخطاب نصٌّ جزيل، وفي المضمون كبير وكثير وخطير.

– جولة ربحناها، ربحها نبيهُنا لنا، ربحتها العروبة ليكون الأمل بالغد لفلسطين.

Related Videos

Related Articles

US Imperialism in Syria: Daesh, ‘SDF,’ White Phosphorus, Hostages

Source

Syria

The one and only flag of the Syrian Arab Republic

US and allies have been busy accelerating their war crimes against Syria over the last two days. White phosphorus and “regular” bombings, ambushes and beheading, Syrian IDPs held hostage are not considered newsworthy by NATO media. More shameless, though, are ‘independent’ media increasingly normalizing geopolitical Newspeak.

On 2 March, the US – led fascist coalition, created by Obama and continued by Trump, again bombed al Baghouz — this time a farming village — in Deir Ezzor, with white phosphorus. Un-shockingly, AFP was (safely) on hand to take photos, while omitting the phosphorus bombs, and waxing poetic on the devastation.

Despite ”sanctions”-related telecommunications problems in Syria, AFP reporter claimed that family members in France had spoken with their French terrorist relatives in al Baghouz.
US Coalition doubles down on war crimes, again bombing al Baghouz with white phosphorus. Photo courtesy SANA.

On 3 March, US’s multi-billion dollar subsidized ally, Israel, bombed Quneitra, Syria.

Israeli media are under the fist of IDF censors, who prefer to first report on their military war crimes via reporting on reports of others.

Also on 3 March, rabid Erdogan continued to show his commitment to the [unilateral] ‘Idlib de-escalation zone’ agreement when his sponsored takfiri attacked Syrian Arab Army outposts.

Massive funeral services were held today, 4 March, for the martyred SAA soldiers slaughtered while defending their country from US-backed terrorists.

Syria
The martyrs helped to repel al Qaeda killers from planned attacks against civilians in Hama and Lattakia.

The swine in the UN somehow are oblivious to the worth of Erdogan’s guarantees for the “Idlib de-escalation zone.”

Syria
‘Erdoğan thinks he’s a Muslim Caliph’ President Assad

On 30 January, US acting ambassador to the UN, Jonathan Cook, threatened Syria that the US was ready to hold Syrian IDPs hostage, in Rukban camp, near al Tanf. This imperialist threat has been activated: Though Syria has opened two humanitarian corridors — Jalib and Jabal al Ghurab — illicit American troops refuse to allow convoys to transport out of the open-air jail. There are approximately 40,000 Syrian hostages in this camp.

Syria
Photo & caption 13 January 2019. “EPA” is a photo agency founded by AFP and 6 other European news agencies.

Such heinous crimes against humanity against Syria, and there is no MSM reporting on any of them. Instead, a Google search has three smarmy propaganda pieces:

Syria
Filthy anti-Syria propaganda offered by sewage media.

The ever-feculent BBC writes of British and Dutch human garbage in Syria as though reporting on a romantic honeymoon. Dutch takfiri Yago Riedijik is interviewed showing excellent telecommunications, despite US economic terrorism and US sponsored terrorists blowing up power plants, both of which make electricity and internet sporadic and undependable for ‘ordinary’ Syrians.

Dutch terrorist Yago Riedijik interviewed by rancid BBC, without a hiccough. This rabid dog is a captive in an American jail…in Syria.

Al Jazeera – owned by the Gulfie gas station toilet, Qatar, which has spent billions toward the final solution against Syria — spent most of its report pretending that the “SDF” is not a US-created international wetworkers militia, and normalizing an American colonel in Syria.

Syria
al Khanzeera quoted American illegal/ military terrorist in Syria

ABC News won the Scum Award, for its description of foreign human garbage Mark Taylor, as “serving with the Islamic State group,” as though he were volunteering as diaper-changer for seniors in nursing homes. Every faction of al Qaeda in Syria — FSA, Nusra, ISIS — has been whitewashed by warmongering media whose countries have armed these savages.

New Zealand human garbage whined to ABC that he was “only” a guard for ISIS. Poor baby..

There is no such thing as a “Kurdish jail” in Syria. There are Syrian jails, or there are makeshift jails created by illegal American troops in Syria. This rabid New Zealander dog was freely interviewed in Qamishli, where, on 8 September 2018, “the traitorous and treacherous faction of Kurds” owned by the US, ambushed and slaughtered 13 members of the SAA military security.

syria
Imagine American soldiers slaughtered in the US, their bodies dumped & the world writing about “moderate American opposition.”
syria
Liters of blood of the Syrian martyrs….

Most appalling of vicious, separatist propaganda came from the too many ‘independent’ news sites that have been consistently pro-Syria, and consistently anti-NATO “regime change” obliteration. It is inexcusable for any of them to ever cite “SOHR” as credible. “SOHR” is one man, Abdul Rahman, funded by British intelligence.

While he freely admits he has not been in Syria since 2000, he leaves out the part about “fleeing” another trial involving fraud. Syria, after all, remains that paradoxical Utopia in which there is no crime, yet the jails runneth over.

Syria

Worse, still, is the legitimization of the faux “Syrian Defense Forces.” This geopolitical scam was created under the Obama regime, which had planned to turn Syria into Libya, Part II, after FSA terroristsaccidentally bombed themselves with chemical weapons, in Ghouta, 2013, because

They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them.  When Saud Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people he must give them to those who know how to use them.”

The Syrian Arab Republic immediately joined the OPCW, forcing the US to switch gears: Several wetworkers — American, British, Japanese — masquerading as “humanitarians” and/or “journalists” were killed off by other foreign wetworkers as cover for the United States to launch a coalition of war criminals to bomb Syria, as the US never keeps its bargains (see “Cue the Illegal Orangettes,” here).

Syria
President Obama, 10 September 2014, addressed the world, live, to announce the creation of international war criminals. Trump has continued the Nobel Laureate’s work.

The US created al Qaeda. The US created ISIS.

syria

US created “ISIS

The US created the “SDF,” because wetworkers cannot be killed as photo ops, indefinitely, lest the pool dry up. The above hyperlinked report includes multiple pictures of “SDF” members: Swedes, Brits, Irish, American (included in Americans was a former juvenile delinquent, alcoholic, druggie who bragged that he had “literally done nothing” “but jack off” before joining the US-SDF).

Consider that NATO forces have occupied Syria’s al Tabqa Dam, since February 2013. First it was occupied by NATO created and armed “FSA,” then came the utterly absurd story that US-ISIS chieftains had sought ‘sanctuary’ there, magically wresting control from FSA. In March 2017 came the psyop that the US-SDF had taken control from the US-ISIS which had taken control from the US-FSA.

syria
al Tabqa Dam.

That Syria has invited the world to take back its particles of human garbage dumped there, does not change the fact that only Syria has the legal authority to arrest criminals in its country. When the “SDF” announces that it has released 283 ISIS prisoners — because ‘they had no blood on their hands’ — this is actually the US admitting it abducts people in Syria, and that it still runs ISIS terrorists against the SAR.

It is an extension of its ongoing imperialist aggression in the Republic, no different than in 2017, when the US signed an agreement with the US for US troops in Syria.

Lest these facts intrude upon the impolite self-soothing of western serfs whose superiority complexes have them always supporting balkanization — under cover of ”rights” of various ethnic groups in othercountries — we chastise their silence when Sheikh al Bouti, of Kurdish origins, was martyred by US sponsored terrorists.

Syria
Sheikh Muhammed Saeed Ramadan al Bouti.
Syria
Sheikh al Bouti with President al Assad and Syria’s Grand Mufti.

We also paraphrase Hillel: That which is military aggression and terrorism in western countries, is also military aggression and terrorism in Syria.

 Miri Wood

NB: It has been noted that a certain social medium’s algorithms take umbrage at headlines with “US” and “ISIS,” censoring such reports and/or suspended accounts that have the temerity to share them.

 

‘Israel’ Anxious at President Assad’s Visit to Iran

Source

February 26, 2019

The Zionist media outlets reflected the Israeli concerns about the Syrian President Bashar Assad’s visit to Iran, describing it as an announcement of victory for all the axis of resistance.

The Zionist reports also highlighted the presence of the IRGC’s Al-Quds Force Commander General Qassem Suleimani in the meetings between Assad and the Iranian senior officials, considering that this underscores the victory.

The Israeli media considered that the visit highlights the depth of the Syrian-Iranian ties, adding that timing it just two days before the PM Benjamin Netanayhu arrives in Moscow has strategic dimensions.

It is worth noting that ‘Israel’ has lost all its bets on witnessing the fall of the Syrian president during the terrorist war on the Arab country.

Related News

The Unreported Realities of Marie Colvin’s Last Assignment

By Jeremy Salt
Source

Marie Colvin 38d62

Familiar with Muslim culture, the American journalist Marie Colvin always took off her shoes when entering a Muslim household. On February 20, 2012, she traveled from Beirut to the Syrian border, where she and photographer Paul Conroy were taken to the outskirts of Homs by minders from the Free Syrian Army. From there they were led into the Baba Amr district through a stormwater drain.

Guided into a ‘rebel’ media center Colvin took off her shoes. Two days later she and Conroy awoke to the sound of intense shelling.  They were led outside with other foreign journalists and told when to run to safety across the street.  According to media reports, Colvin was running back to retrieve her shoes after one explosion when there was a second, killing her and French photographer Remi Ochlik.

Beginning in May 2011, Homs had been infiltrated by armed groups. Towards the end of the year, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was able to tighten its hold on the Baba Amr district. No quarter was given to captured soldiers or civilians identified as supporting the government.  In December 2011, FSA fighters stood 11 Syrians they accused of being shabiha (pro-government paramilitary fighters) against a wall and shot them dead.

The army intensified its operations but it was only after the killing of 10 soldiers at a government checkpoint on February 2, 2012, that it decided to do what was necessary to drive the ‘rebels’ out of Baba Amr. The bombardment of the district was scaled up. Colvin was killed on February 22 and 10 days later the FSA abandoned Baba Amr.

On January 31, 2019, a federal district court in Washington ruled that the Syrian government was responsible for Colvin’s death and should pay $302.5 million compensation to her family.

The plaintiffs were Marie Colvin’s sister Cathleen and a nephew and niece. The defendant, the summons served through the Czech embassy in Damascus, was the Syrian government; It did not respond and was not represented in court. The judge, Amy Berman Jackson, ruled that the plaintiffs’ brief was so comprehensive that an evidentiary hearing, in which a judge hears testimony and documentary evidence from both sides can be reviewed, was not necessary.

The plaintiffs’ evidence included a declaration by ‘Ulysses’, the pseudonym of someone claiming to be a defector from the Syrian government’s intelligence services; a statement by David Kaye, a former adviser to the US State Department and now a rapporteur with the UN; and an affidavit by Robert Ford, the former ambassador to Syria who in 2011 broke diplomatic protocol – and a Syrian government ban on diplomats leaving Damascus – by visiting the centres of street protests.  Accused of incitement by the Syrian government, he was withdrawn in October.

Ruling that the Syrian army had fired the artillery shell that had killed Colvin, Judge Jackson concluded that her death had been a ‘targeted murder.’  She did not mention that Colvin and Conroy had entered Syria illegally but she did note that the US government had designated Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism on December 29, 1979, following its support for the Iranian revolution. Given government and media hostility to Syria since that time, the outcome of the Colvin court action was never likely to be anything other than a finding for the plaintiffs.

Colvin was an experienced war correspondent. She had lost an eye while reporting the Sri Lankan civil conflict from the side of the Tamil Tigers. She had reported from East Timor, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, amongst other theatres of war, before going to Syria. As correspondents do, she had witnessed terrible things. The death of civilians, especially children, affected her deeply.

These accumulated experiences took a heavy personal toll. She began to drink heavily, she was having nightmares and she had been treated at a clinic for PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) before heading off to Syria. Once in Homs, her employer, the London Sunday Times, ordered her to leave but she refused. The paper later came under criticism for letting her go in the first place, given the fragile state of her mental health.

These aspects of her life were depicted in the recently released biopic, A Private War, woven around an account of her life written for Vanity Fair by Marie Brenner (‘Marie Colvin’s Private War,’ August 2012).

On the day of Colvin’s death, she was described in an online article for Vanity Fair as having ‘died as a martyr …. a martyr for truth and the standards of civilization … she died because she wanted the world to know the full extent of the barbarism practiced by President Bashar al Assad’s forces against his own people.’ (Henry Porter and Annabel Davidson, ‘Remembering War Correspondent Marie Colvin: 1957-2012,’ Vanity Fair, February 22, 2012).

Truth, of course, is the first casualty of war. The Greek dramatist Aeschylus apparently first coined the phrase, which has been repeated many times by many people over the centuries. As for civilization, it has been used to justify every war of aggression launched in the Middle East by the US and European powers for the past 200 years.

In this region, the standards of civilization, as we imagine them to be, consisting of civilized behaviour, justice, fairness, respect for human life and respect for the law, have not been upheld but violated in brutal and inhumane fashion by the very governments that repeatedly invoke them as justification for the crimes they are committing.

No doubt Marie Colvin was reporting the truth as she saw it but how much could she see of anything in the space of two days, effectively trapped in a war-scarred building under heavy bombardment by the Syrian army?

In her final despatch for the Sunday Times, she talked to women in what she called the ‘widows’ basement’ and she watched (apparently on a video feed from a clinic, contrary to the impression she gave that she was actually there) a baby dying from a shrapnel wound. Asked on CNN why she thought showing the image of the dead baby was important Colvin replied: ‘That baby will move more people to think ‘What is going on and why is no one stopping this murder in Homs that is happening every day.’

Colvin said 300 women were in the basement, a figure which, from other reports, seems to have been wildly exaggerated.  Who these women were was not clarified, but seeing that that Baba Amr was controlled by the FSA, many of the dead husbands were probably fighting men.

When Colvin said that 28,000 civilians were trapped in Baba Amr she had to be repeating what she had been told by her FSA minders.  She had no way of knowing how many civilians remained trapped in Baba Amr and the figure seems to have been a gross overestimate, aimed no doubt at further dramatizing the plight of civilians trapped in what the media was misleadingly calling the ‘siege of Homs.’

Colvin and Conroy first entered Syria on February 13. They were taken to Baba Amr on February 15. The next day Colvin was able to visit a makeshift field hospital set up in an apartment building as well as civilians sheltering in a basement storage depot but on hearing rumors of an impending army offensive and a ‘possible gas attack’ (as claimed by Judge Berman, without any such credible claim having been made at the time) they fled in the evening.  This was all Colvin was able to see for herself outside the ‘rebel’ media center during her two visits to Baba Amr.

Baba Amr constituted about 15 percent of the city and had a pre-war population of about 100,000. Most civilians in the district fled to the 80-85 percent of the city controlled by the government once the armed groups launched their assault on Baba Amr.

Colvin said Homs was being bombed by ‘a murderous dictator.’  Talking to CNN from Baba Amr she said ‘there are no military targets here. There is the FSA, heavily outnumbered and outgunned – they have only Kalashnikovs and rocket-propelled grenades. But they don’t have a base. There are more young men being killed, we see a lot of teenaged young men but they are going out just to try to get the wounded to some kind of medical treatment. It’s a complete and utter lie that they’re only going after terrorists.’

What Colvin actually saw was true. A baby did die and the women in the basement were suffering but by 2012 Syria was a land of suffering women and dead babies, killed not by the ‘murderous dictator’ but by ‘rebels’ supported with money and arms by outside governments.

It was not true, however, there were no military targets in Baba Amr. Colvin’s definition of a valid target seems to have been an actual military base. There was not one, of course, but the armed groups who had infiltrated Baba Amr and killed many Syrian soldiers and civilians in the process were no less an equally valid military target.

The FSA was certainly outgunned, as any insurgent force must be when challenging a regular army, but already early in 2012, outside governments were stepping up supplies to reduce the gap.

In March 2013, the New York Times reported that several governments, with help from the CIA, had begun airlifting weapons to the ‘rebels’ in early January 2012.  Over a year more than 160 cargo flights had taken an estimated 3500 tons of weapons to Ankara airport and other airports in Turkey and Jordan for delivery to ‘rebels’ across the border.  As the ‘rebel’ group of choice, the bulk of these weapons would have gone to the FSA, even if they eventually ended up in other hands.

Colvin’s reference to young men running into the streets to rescue the wounded and not fight is not something she could have known. In fact, young men were the backbone of all armed groups as they were of the Syrian army.

The Syrian army was not shelling ‘Homs’ but only part of a city which had been taken over by armed groups.  The government in Damascus – Syria’s legitimate government and the representative of the country’s interests at the UN – had the constitutional responsibility of driving them out.

The civilians trapped in Baba Amr were certainly at risk but what Colvin was seeing – or reporting rather than actually seeing for herself – was only a small corner of a very large picture of human suffering.  The general civilian death toll was beginning to rise sharply in 2012 as the armed groups – including the group sheltering Colvin and Conroy – launched attacks across the country.

Many of these attacks were completely indiscriminate, as for example when mortars were fired into the middle of Damascus or a rigged car was exploded outside a government ministry.

As civilians are always going to die in war, the critical question is one of responsibility.  Whatever the failings of the Syrian government, it was support by outside governments for these armed groups that brought Syria to its knees and not the attempts by the Syrian government to prevent the country from being bled to death.

The publicity given to the death of Marie Colvin has now been revived by the publicity given to the film of her life and to the court ruling against the Syrian government. The film returns Colvin and the ‘murderous dictator’ to a news cycle which had largely lost interest in Syria since the defeat of the armed groups it had been supporting as ‘rebels’ until Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of US troops.

At the same time, the publicity is an opportunity to examine Colvin’s role in the context of a media which uniformly misreported the war in Syria as it had only recently misreported the war in Libya and before that the invasion of Iraq in 2004.  The canons of responsible journalism were all junked.  There was no balance, no reporting of the Syrian government’s version of events except for nominal references to its denial of atrocities in such a way that the reader was invited to disbelieve them.

The narrative was entirely built around the claims of ‘rebels’ and activists and sources far from the scene, such as the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights.  Whatever they cared to say, no matter how wild and improbable, would be reported without any attempt being made by the media to uncover the truth.

Anything that would damage the Syrian government was regarded as fit to print, anything that would support its claims would be suppressed, or as far as possible turned against the government. Knowing this, the activists developed an industry based on lies and deceit to serve the corporate media’s needs.

This is the media environment in which Marie Colvin operated. Perhaps she had private doubts, but from what she said in her few reports from Syria she had swallowed whole the mainstream media narrative of rebels standing against a brutal dictator who was killing his own people.

All critical elements were missing from the news cycle. In March 2011, during ‘peaceful’ protests in Dara’a, the media headlined the alleged arrest and beating of children for scrawling graffiti on walls, while ignoring the evidence of arms stockpiled in a mosque and the slaughter of soldiers and police by bands of armed men.

Gunmen shooting into crowds from rooftops were part of what was clearly a well-planned revolt.  While the media insinuated that they were Syrian state agents, the far greater likelihood is that they were agents-provocateurs but nowhere in the media mainstream was there any follow-up. Only the accusation, not the proof, was important, an approach which was to characterize the media narrative.

Similarly, June 2011, the massacre of about 120 Syrian soldiers and civilians in the northern town of Jisr al Shughur was presented as a civilian response to government oppression and torture rather than what it was, a carefully planned attack on government offices by well-armed takfiri groups.   Video clips – never shown in the media mainstream – showed bodies being taken in a pickup truck to a high bridge over the Assi (Orontes) river and being pitched into the water over the railing to cries of ‘Allahu akbar.’  Later, mass graves were also uncovered.

Colvin’s role must begin with who brought her into Syria. She was not the only ‘western’ journalist funneled into Baba Amr from the Lebanese border.  A pipeline had been set up, with the online activist network Avaaz liaising with FSA ‘rebels’ to smuggle western journalists into the city.

Avaaz had also been supplying the ‘rebels’ with medical supplies, satellite modems and cell phones with cameras.  With the help of an ‘activist’ called Wael Fayez al Omar (a source for the plaintiffs in the court case against the Syrian government), it organized the transport of Colvin and her photographer, Paul Conroy, to the Syrian border.  The FSA then took over and moved them to Baba Amr, first on February 13 and again when they decided to return on February 20.

Formally established in July 2011, the FSA quickly won the support of Turkey, which provided it with a camp from which it was soon organizing attacks across the Syrian border.  Turkey also backed the FSA’s political arm, the Syrian National Council, an exile body which had no known support inside Syria, providing it with money and offices in Istanbul.  The FSA itself was never a proper army but rather a brand name for a ‘rebel’ collective involving numerous armed groups who responded to their own leaders, rather than the injunctions of the FSA leadership in Turkey.

The early actions for which the FSA claimed responsibility included the explosion inside the Syrian national security headquarters in July 2011, which killed several senior military and government personnel, including the defense minister and two of his deputies.

By this time the FSA was already launching attacks in many parts of Syria. Insofar as Homs was concerned, ‘rebel’ groups, including the FSA, penetrated the city in May, 2011, and succeeded in taking control of the Baba Amr district by the end of the year after overrunning military checkpoints.

By 2012 the FSA was operating at peak strength across Syria. It was killing soldiers, police and civilians and sabotaging oil pipelines and other infrastructure. In May, several months after the FSA had been driven from Homs, the Houla district, about 30 kms northwest of Homs and largely under the control of the FSA, was the site of the massacre of 108 men, women and children.

While the Syrian government was automatically blamed by ‘western’ governments and the corporate media, accounts pieced together later by journalists on the scene indicated that villages in the Houla region had been attacked by a joint force of about 700 takfiris, including a contingent of about 250 FSA fighters.

Their targets were Sunni Muslims who supported the government or, reportedly, had converted to Shia Islam.  The victims’ houses were hit by rocket-propelled grenades but most of the killing seems to have been done with small arms and knives.

In November, 2012, a mass grave of soldiers and civilians killed by FSA fighters was found at Ras al Ayn, just over the Turkish border.  In August, 2013, an attack was launched on Alawi villages in Latakia province by the FSA, Jabhat al Nusra, Ahrar al Sham, the Islamic State and other takfiri groups.  The FSA commander Salim Idris said the FSA had participated in the assault ‘to a great extent.’

Hundreds of those who took part in the assault were foreigners.  This was a sectarian assault aimed at cleaning the landscape of the despised Alawis. Up to 190 men, women and children were killed and hundreds more women and children kidnapped.  There are unconfirmed reports that some of the children were taken to Damascus to be used as props in the chemical weapons attack of August 21, 2013, blamed on the Syrian government but carried out by ‘rebels’ working in conjunction with foreign governments, with the aim of pushing Barack Obama across his self-declared chemical weapons ‘red line’ so that he would order an air attack on Syria.

On other occasions, the officially-sanctioned FSA ‘rebels’ cooperated with the officially-designated ‘terrorists’ in attacks on government positions.  In October, 2014, the FSA joined forces with the Islamic State, and Jabhat al Nusra in an attack on Idlib city in which 70 Syrian army soldiers, including senior officers, were beheaded.

Many other FSA atrocities can be added to these episodes.  Most of them had not happened when Marie Colvin was in Homs but FSA brutality had clearly been demonstrated in the year before she arrived.

The minders who moved Colvin and photographer Paul Conroy to Homs from the Lebanese border were not just FSA but armed members of one of its most brutal units, the Faruq Brigade.  It had captured Baba Amr and held it in a ruthless grip.

The takfiri element was already strong in the ranks of the Faruq Brigade and only strengthened after its ejection from Homs.  Interviewed by the French journalist Mani in September, 2012, members of the brigade spoke of relatives in Homs who they alleged were being butchered by Alawis and Shia.  They were determined to take their revenge. As one of them remarked, ‘It’s not about the army any more or toppling the regime. It’s a sectarian conflict now.’

Clearly unknown to Colvin and Conroy, the brigade was taking its captives to a burial ground at night and cutting their throats.  According to one of its members interviewed by a Der Spiegel reporter in March, 2012, nearly 150 men had been executed in this fashion since the previous summer.  This period covered the two occasions Colvin was in Baba Amr.

One of the Faruq Brigade commanders in Baba Amr was Khalid al Hamad, nom de guerre Abu Saqqar.  After fleeing Baba Amr, Abu Saqqar set up his own fighting force, the Omar al Faruq Brigade.

Variously described as a street vendor from Homs and a bedu with ‘a wild stare’ (Paul Wood of the BBC), Abu Saqqar was shown in a video released in May, 2013, but apparently filmed in March, calling on ‘the heroes of Baba Amr’ to slaughter the Alawis, remove their hearts and eat them.

He himself proceeded to cut open the body of a dead Syrian soldier, who he claimed had a mobile phone in his pocket showing the soldier raping a woman and her daughters.   Abu Saqqar removed various organs before lifting the heart to his mouth and appearing to bite off a piece.  Later joining Jabhat al Nusra, he was ambushed and killed in 2016 by members of a rival Takfiri group, reportedly Ahrar al Sham.

In conclusion, did Marie Colvin die as a ‘martyr to truth’ or did she die not just because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time but because she was keeping the wrong company? She was a well-known journalist for a leading British newspaper and therefore a prize catch for the ‘rebels.’  They were only going to tell her what they wanted her to believe, and feed into the corporate media news cycle.  Trapped in a bombed-out building, she would not have the opportunity to investigate the truth for herself, especially in the two days she had before she was killed.

Colvin called for intervention to save the trapped civilians of Baba Amr. ‘Why is no-one stopping the murder in Homs?’, she asked. In fact, the US and its allies had already been laying the groundwork for military intervention.

An Arab League resolution tabled at the UN Security Council on February 4 called on the Syrian army to withdraw from the towns and cities it was defending from attack by armed groups.  Russia and China supported the Syrian view that the resolution constituted a gross infringement of Syria’s sovereignty and vetoed it.  Had the resolution been passed, non-fulfilment of the conditions laid down could have opened the way to military intervention, probably an air campaign far more devastating than the seven-month assault that destroyed Libya.

Thwarted at the UN, the US and its allies then formed a collective calling itself the ‘Friends of the Syrian People.’  Their intervention in the form of support for armed groups led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and almost destroyed Syria.

The point of this article is not to denigrate Marie Colvin.  She has been described as foolhardy because of the risks she took but she was a person of great courage.  She was deeply affected by the death of civilians, especially children.  Her insistence that the media show the images of the baby killed by shrapnel was justified but it was not just the alleged victims of the ‘murderous dictator’ her readers and television viewers needed to see but the victims of the armed groups.

They were being slaughtered across the country, soldiers who were fighting for their country (not the ‘regime’) and civilians who supported their government, but as any telling of their fate or the suffering of their families would have disrupted a narrative based on the crimes of the dictator and his ‘regime’ and perhaps prompted people to ask ‘what is going on? Why is no-one stopping this murder?’, as Colvin had asked in Baba Amr, their voices had to be suppressed.

The Syrian government accused Colvin of working with terrorists.  Its own definition of the word would include not just the armed men but the ‘activists’ and ‘media centers’ that were their propaganda extensions.  It was with these people that Marie Colvin was sheltering when she was killed.

There has never been any evidence that any of the armed groups commanded anything more than miniscule support in Syria, including genuine support from civilians who lived in fear under their rule.  When the takfiris were driven out of Homs and Aleppo and the two cities were whole again, their citizens celebrated in the streets, not that corporate media consumers were likely to have seen such scenes.

Support for Bashar al Assad was strong at the start of the war and would be stronger now.  Every election held in the past few years – held fairly and under the watch of outside observers – proves the point.

The renewed attention to Marie Colvin’s death is an occasion to cast an eye over the state of the corporate media.  When Seymour Hersh cannot get published in his own country it is clear that journalism, as we knew it until it was fully corporatized, is in a parlous state.  Far from defending the right of the citizen to know, the media has been complicit in enabling governments to deceive.  Syria is only the latest in a chain of misreported wars, with the assault on Venezuela shaping up as the next one.

The corporate media had already made up its mind about Syria in 2011.  Marie Colvin did not have the time to develop her own narrative about Baba Amr and what was happening in Syria generally but no-one ever gets everything right.   Her role model, Martha Gellhorn, was good on Spain and Vietnam but terrible on the Middle East. In her article ‘The Arabs of Palestine’ (The Atlantic, October 1961) she extolled Israel and its kibbutzim, racist institutions by any measure, and put the Palestinians down in a manner that was itself bordering on racist.

In a better state of mental health and with more time to get behind the propaganda passed off as news about Syria, Marie Colvin might have seen through the deceits and exposed them.  The bleak reality, however, is that she spent her last assignment under the protection of a violent armed group which despised the personal freedom and the values she was sure to have cherished.

How Syria Won The Revolution; The Jihadi Factor

 

February 06, 2019

By Ghassan and Intibah Kadi

How Syria Won The Revolution; The Jihadi Factor

The “War on Syria” has had many unintended twists and turns that were unforeseeable at the time it began. The plotters had no reason to believe they were going to lose, and the defenders had no option other than doing all they could and risk and sacrifice all that was dear and precious.

However, as frontlines are now being redrawn in Syria in preparation for the final showdown, a recapitulation of the events of the last eight years reveals that Syria did in fact end up having a revolution, but the group that embarked on the initial alleged revolution, the Free Syria Army (FSA) is nowhere to be seen.

This brings us back to the initial “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” that I wrote an article about back in early 2011; http://intibahwakeup.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-anti-syrian-cocktail-by-ghassan-kadi.html. The ring leader was Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, son of then Crown Prince Sultan, and the man who hoped he would be the first grandson of founding King Abdul-Aziz to become king. In two subsequent articles, “The Anti-Syrian Politics” (http://intibahwakeup.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-anti-syrian-politics-by-ghassan.html) and “The Anti Syrian Vendetta”, http://intibahwakeup.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-anti-syrian-vendetta-by-ghassan.html the articles focused on how Bandar tried to raise the largest army he could conjure, and with virtually bottomless funds, he put together a very loosely-united cocktail of groups who had nothing in common other than their hatred towards Syria.

In more ways than one, pre-King Faisal Saudi Arabia kept to itself. Founder, King Abdul-Aziz who died in 1953, had the doctrinal substance that would have exported Wahhabism to neighbouring Muslim countries, but his main concern was to bolster his domain over his new kingdom and give it a strong foundation that would secure its longevity. His successor son Saud was infamous for his orgies and debauchery. He capitalized on the spoils of the new-found wealth and did not have any agenda other than indulging in earthly pleasures. It wasn’t until he was deposed and replaced by his brother Faisal in 1964 that Saudi Arabia had a king who was a fundamentalist and also desirous of spreading Wahhabism to the outside Muslim World.

And when the “War on Syria” began, and long before the identity of the would be willing fighter was well defined, I predicted in the same above-mentioned articles that a widely diverse coalition of enemies of Syria were banding together, using Muslim fundamentalism as a recruitment drive, and as the fundamentalist factor became clear for all to see, it eventually transpired that Qatar became a new kid on the block in providing bigtime funding to a number of terror organizations operating in Syria.

They were all not only united by their hatred for Syria, but also specifically to the Assad legacy; particularly due the fact that the Assads are Alawites, and in their eyes, infidels. Their main objective was to topple President Assad and ensure that Syria was ruled by an anti-Iranian Sunni fundamentalist government.

Bandar had no qualms at all about uniting the ununitable. To Bandar however, it was not about a war of ideologies, and he was no strict Muslim. To Bandar, the “War on Syria” was about power and curbing Iran’s influence in the region. That said, he found in the already-existing numerous Jihadi armies excellent tools and pawns to use. In doing so, he did not foresee the many fault lines emerging in his fragmented army, let alone seeing any reason to worry about such cracks because, in the beginning he seemed to be going from strength to strength, with a seemingly huge chance of success. When he presented his plan to his American masters, he received the thumbs up.

Like all other early indigenous writers who supported Syria from day one of the onslaught, we all took the optimistic view and kept reiterating that victory was certain, but only a question of time. We were mindful of the importance of keeping spirits up and boosting morale, and being optimistic about turns in events and alliances that were to Syria’s advantage. In retrospect however, up until the Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) first substantial win of the battle of Qusayr in mid 2013, more than two years into the war, the Jihadis, combined, were winning the war and closing in on key government positions right across the Syrian terrain; including the main cities.

So how did events turn around and how did the “War on Syria” turn against the plotters?

To be able to predict what was to happen was unthinkable in hindsight. It is only now that we can sit and make sense by harking back at the events of the last few years.

It would be virtually impossible to work out which came first, the chicken or the egg, but there is no doubt at all that the resilience of Syrian people and the SAA played the most significant role. But that role could have been reversed had the plotters been better able to play their game to their advantage.

Fortunately the plotters didn’t, but had they played down the role of Jihad and tried to capitalize on political reform, they would have perhaps been better able to achieve their insidious objectives.

Before the war, Syria was fraught with corruption and there were many reasons to call for reform. Agitators aside, was why the initial demonstrations in Daraa were conducted under this banner. It was under this guise also that the infamous FSA was formed as a splinter group of the regular SAA. Virtually all of the FSA officers and soldiers were SAA defectors.

For a while, a fair while, and long before ISIS and Al-Nusra came to prominence, the FSA was the major fighting force against the regular army (SAA).

During those initial months, it was very difficult to convince sympathizers of the so-called Syrian opposition that this was not a civil war, that it was not about reform, and that it was simply a conspiracy against Syria, planned and orchestrated by her regional and international adversaries, using and employing Islamist Jihadists and their supporting nations. The reason behind this difficulty was because those fundamentalist fighters were nowhere to be seen.

This was why many activists, including some prominent pro-Palestine Western activists, were adamant in their support of the “revolution” and genuinely believed that it was a popular revolt seeking reform and political plurality among other things.

In hindsight now, looking back at it all, had the mastermind plotters seen the benefit in the reform/freedom guise, had they had the wisdom and foresight in weighing out their benefits of overtly importing and arming fundamentalist fighters as against focusing their efforts on duping the public and generating real and genuine dissent amongst Syrians to their government, they might have succeeded in creating a revolution that served their agendas.

After all, it would have been conceivable for the plotters to promote misinformation and make it look plausible and endorsable. There is another chicken and egg scenario here. Did the plotters import Jihadi fighters because they weren’t able to mobilize enough Syrians against their government, or did Syrians support their government because the plotters brought in foreign Jihadi fighters?

Whichever one came first here, the chicken or the egg, neither one of them had to cross the road for the people of Syria to ask questions in order to see that what they were witnessing was not a revolution as touted by world media; especially the Western media and their Arab cohorts such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya.

Perhaps the plotters’ biggest failure was in being unable to hide their intentions and disguise in a manner that reflected to Syrians that there was indeed a popular and genuine reform-based revolution in their country for them to join.

 

In other words, by allowing the so-called civil war/revolution to show its brutal and ugly fundamentalist sectarian face, the plotters turned many Syrian sympathizers and many other would-be supporters against them. And this was how secular free-minded Syrians flocked together in support of their legitimate secular government; whether they believed that reform was necessary or otherwise. This was the reason why genuine supporters of reform and patriots who are in positions of political opposition to the government all banded together to fight the real enemy. This of course bolstered not only the government’s position, but also that of the SAA and this played a significant role in creating a much more resolute and united Syria.

The plotters also failed in being able to produce a charismatic figure head for the “revolution”. All the while secular Syrians looked up to President Assad and the First Lady; two figure heads charming in every way, and with the power to unite by leading by example.

Of significance also was the fact that the disunited “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” was bound to fragment sooner or later; not only on strategic and doctrinal lines, but also on matters of power sharing, loyalty, and splitting of spoils. To this effect, clashes between different fundamentalist organizations became daily events.

Later on, as the turn of events presented to the plotters and their henchmen that victory was impossible, especially after Russia entered the ground and sky, their infighting morphed into that of survival and hope for better positions on either reconciliation tables or on disengagement talks, or both. Those Jihadi versus Jihadi battles in latter times continued to rage culminating recently in a total takeover by Al-Nusra of all other terror groups in Idlib.

Whilst I have always reiterated in previous articles that there was hardly any difference at all between the numerous fundamentalist Islamic Jihadi organizations, the Wahhabi faction that is loyal to Saudi Arabia has lost abysmally to the Qatari/Turkish led Muslim Brotherhood (MB) faction which is now in full control of the last bastion left for terrorists west of the Euphrates, and specifically in Idlib and surrounds.

With this, Erdogan feels that he still has a finger in the pie before final negotiations commence about the future of the terrorist enclave. Whether those delay tactics work or not for Erdogan, whether they preclude the need for a military resolution is yet to be seen. Any such resolution however will give Erdogan a form of a consolation prize, a humble victory that he badly seeks in Syria after all of his initial gambles went terribly wrong.

At this juncture, we must pause and ask what became of the movement that allegedly represented the passion of Syrians for secular and democratic reform. Where is the FSA now?

If the news about Al-Nusra’s total control of the Idlib region is accurate, we must then assume that the FSA is no longer in existence, because prior to the recent upheaval between Al-Nusra and other brigades in the region, the presence of the FSA was restricted to this area.

Ironically, the FSA has had a late resurgence not too long ago before Al-Nusra wiped out all rival militia, but Erdogan seems to have pulled the plug on the FSA, but for some reason, there is nothing I can find in the news from the region, or anywhere for this matter, to confirm this conclusion or debunk it.

What is clear is that the FSA, the only dissenting player that had in the very early beginnings a miniscule semblance of secular Syrian dissent, perhaps the only player that could have potentially turned into a popular revolution, has been disempowered and dismantled by the same demonic forces that created it and funded it.

Either way, whether Erdogan has done the dirty on the FSA or not, the FSA lost its position and clout when its role was overtaken by the many Islamist terrorist organizations. It tried hard to maintain its presence even though many of its rank-and-file rejoined the SAA, whilst others changed uniform and joined Al-Nusra, but the short of it is that the FSA has become a spent force.

Syria had many problems before the war and continues to grapple with some of them. Wars of such devastating magnitude almost invariably leave behind not only a trail of mess and destruction, but also a countless number of corrupt officials and profiteers. Every dog has its day, and the cleanup will soon begin.

But the irony is that with the “War on Syria”, the lines have been drawn and Syrians now know well who is with them and who is against them, domestically, regionally and internationally. They know what alliances they need to nurture and which others to seek. They know what political system they want and which they totally refute. They have chosen and fought for a government they were told decades ago that it came to power by a popular revolution back in March 1963, and later on reformed by Hafez Assad’s “corrective movement” of November 1970, but the choice Syrians made from 2011 onwards was their own, and they upheld it with tears and blood.

Syria has gone the full circle against her enemies and against archaic and brutal dogmas. It seems that Syria has truly ended up having a revolution after all, a real revolution, and that real revolution has won. There is a great opportunity now to rebuild the nation, to rebuild it on wholesome, principled, virtuous and sound foundations.

السيد نصر الله للميادين: دمشق ومحور المقاومة سيردون على اعتداءات “إسرائيل” وعلى نتنياهو ألا يخطئ التقدير

الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصر الله يطل في حوار العام على شاشة الميادين، ويدحض الشائعات التي تتناوله منذ مدة، ويؤكد أنه بصحة جيدة وأن انكفاءه عن الظهور الإعلامي لا صلة له بالوضع الصحي، ويتوعد الاحتلال الإسرائيلي

بالرد على اعتداءاته على سوريا من قبل دمشق ومحور المقاومة.

الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصر الله في مقابلة مباشرة على الهواء مع قناة الميادين، حيث أكد أنه بصحة جيدة وأن الانكفاء عن الظهور الإعلامي خلال الفترة الماضية “لا صلة له بالوضع الصحي أبداً وكل ما قيل هو أكاذيب”.

وشدد السيد على أنه لم يتعرض لأي مشكلة صحية أبداً رغم دخوله عامه الستين.

وأردف نصر الله “ارتأينا أن ما يتردد عن شائعات بشأن صحتي هو استدراجي للتكلم وهو ما لا نريده.. فلسنا ملزمين بالرد على الشائعات والذي يريد الآخرون تحديد توقيته”… “سأتحدث في الشهر المقبل 3 مرات لأن هناك 3 مناسبات”، ختم نصر الله في هذا الشأن.

نتنياهو خدمنا عبر إدخال الرعب في قلوب المستوطنين عبر عملية “درع الشمال”

السيد نصر الله تطرق إلى العملية التي أطلقتها “إسرائيل” على الحدود مع لبنان تحت عنوان “درع شمالي”، مشيراً إلى أنه “ارتأينا في حزب الله أن ندع الإسرائيليين يتكلمون عن عملية درع الشمال حتى انتهائها”، مضيفاً أن “العملية لم تنته رغم إعلان الإسرائيليين أنها انتهت، لأن الحفارات ما زالت تعمل”.

وكشف السيد نصر الله عن أن هناك أنفاقاً في الجنوب اللبناني، ولكنه أضاف “لسنا ملزمين بأن نعلن عمن حفرها أو متى لأننا نعتمد الغموض البناء”، واعتبر أن المفاجئ بالنسبة للحزب أن “الإسرائيلي تأخر في اكتشاف هذه الأنفاق”، وأن هناك أنفاق قديمة بعضها يعود إلى 13 عاماً، وهو ما يؤكد فشل الاستخبارات الإسرائيلية.

“مسألة استمرار وجود أنفاق يجب أن تبقى غامضة”، شدد أمين عام حزب الله الذي توجه بكلامه صوب المستوطنين قائلاً إن عليهم التأكد “مما إذا كان مسؤولوهم يقولون الحقيقة بشأن الأنفاق”.

واعتبر السيد نصر الله أن “إعلان نتنياهو وطاقمه بأن الأنفاق كانت تمهد لعملية الجليل خدمنا وأكد أننا صادقون”، وأضاف أن “نتنياهو خدمنا عبر إدخال الرعب والخوف والهلع إلى قلوب كل المستوطنين في الشمال”.

ورغم أن الأنفاق لم تكن تستحق هذه الدعاية وفق نصر الله، أشار السيد إلى أن عملية درع الشمال “خدمتنا في الحرب النفسية”.

بالإضافة، أوضح نصر الله أن اجراءات الاحتلال على الحدود تعكس “الخشية الإسرائيلية من عملية الجليل المحتملة.. فالمناورات الإسرائيلية الضخمة حصلت تحسباً للعملية”.

وسأل نصر الله “هل حزب الله سيعتمد على 4 أنفاق لإدخال الآلاف من مقاتليه من أجل عملية الجليل”، موضحاً أن أي عملية باتجاه الجليل “تحتاج إلى كل الحدود ونحن نقررها في حال حصول حرب علينا”.

وأضاف السيد “عملية الجليل لن تتوقف على الأنفاق وكيف لنتنياهو أن يعلم أنه دمرها كلها”.

وربط السيد نصر الله عملية الدخول إلى الجليل بحصول عدوان على لبنان وقال إنهم (الإسرائيليون) “لن يعلموا من أين سندخل إلى الجليل وهي لن تحصل إلا في حال العدوان على لبنان.. فجزء من خطتنا هو الدخول إلى الجليل، ونحن قادرون على ذلك ونقرر وفق مجريات الحرب”.

“نحن منذ سنوات نملك القدرة على تنفيذ العملية وأصبح الأمر أسهل بعد تجربتنا في سوريا”، أكد السيد، وجزم بأنه للدفاع عن لبنان “فمن حقنا اتخاذ كل الإجراءات الدفاعية بعيداً عما يعتقده الآخرون”.

وأكد السيد نصر الله أن “عملية الأنفاق لا تلغي عملية الجليل المحضر لها ولو بنسبة 10% وهي لم تستحق هذه الدعاية”.

ثمن الاعتداء على لبنان سيكون أكبر بكثير مما تتوقعه “إسرائيل”

السيد نصر الله توعد “إسرائيل” بأنها “إذا اعتدت على لبنان فستندم لأن ثمن الاعتداء سيكون أكبر بكثير مما يتوقعه.. خياراتنا مفتوحة لفعل كل ما يلزم بعقل وحكمة وشجاعة”.

وأكد السيد أن “أي اعتداء إسرائيلي؛ حرباً أو اغتيالاً، لعناصر حزب الله في لبنان وحتى سوريا سنرد عليه”، محدداً “أي عملية ضرب أهداف محددة هي محاولة لتغيير قواعد الاشتباك سنتعامل معها على هذا الأساس”.

كذلك أوضح نصر الله أن “أي عملية واسعة يشنها العدو سنتعامل معها على أنها حرب”، محذراً الإسرائيليين من أن “نتنياهو قد يرتكب الأخطاء نتيجة طموحاته”، وتابع “المقاومة وكل محور المقاومة جاهزون للرد في حال حصول أي عدوان”، ولكنه استبعد في الوقت ذاته أن “يشن العدو حرباً على لبنان”، ولم ينفي أنه من الممكن أن يخطئ في سوريا وغزة.

وفي السياق، لفت نصر الله إلى أن “المقاومة لم تتدخل في مسألة ترسيم الحدود وهي من شأن الدولة.. فنحن نقف خلف الدولة والجيش في موضوع الجدار وعلينا انتظار تصرفها ليبنى على الشيء مقتضاه”.

ورأى السيد أن “هناك شبه انسجام لبنانياً في عدم حصول أي نزاع بشأن عملية الأنفاق.. فقد حصل فشل استخباري إسرائيلي في زعزعة الموقف اللبناني الرسمي ككل عبر عملية الأنفاق”.

“الموقف الرسمي اللبناني في مجلس الأمن وموقف الكويت هما فشل استخباري إسرائيلي أيضاً”، أضاف الأمين العام لحزب الله وأكد “نحن نقف خلف الجيش اللبناني ولا نريد جر الدولة إلى أي حرب”.

السيد نصر الله حثّ الدولة اللبنانية على “مراجعة ما يفعله الإسرائيلي على الحدود من اجراءات”، مشيراً إلى أنه “نحن وبلا شروط وفي أي زمان ومكان مستعدون لتلبية الدعوة إلى وضع استراتيجية دفاعية”.

السيد نصر الله أكد أن نتنياهو في عملية درع الشمال “سجل انجازاً كبيراً في الأوهام وهي أقل من عملية”، لكنه لفت إلى أنه “علينا توقع تصرف غير حكيم من قبل نتنياهو عشية الانتخابات”.

إلى ذلك، أكد نصر الله أن “مخاوف إسرائيل في سوريا كبيرة جداً لأن هناك فشلاً استخبارياً إسرائيلياً ذريعاً هناك”.

وإلى غزة انتقل نصر الله مؤكداً أن “الجهوزية النفسية في غزة وخصوصاً بعد انتصارها الأخير تؤكد أن أهلها لن يتسامحوا.. والقطاع مستعد للرد عسكرياً على أي عدوان”.

نمتلك العدد الكافي من الصواريخ الدقيقة من أجل أي مواجهة مقبلة

وأكد السيد نصر الله أن “المقاومة كانت تمتلك في عدوان تموز 2006 صواريخ كانت قادرة على ضرب تل أبيب”، مشيراً في هذا السياق امتلاك الحزب لصواريخ دقيقة “وبالعدد الكافي للمواجهة في أي حرب مقبلة وضرب أي هدف نريده”.

السيد أوضح أن “بعض جنرالات الاحتلال يقرون بأن الحروب المقبلة لن تكون كالحروب السابقة”، مشيراً إلى أنه “في أي حرب مقبلة علينا ستكون كل فلسطين المحتلة ميدان قتال وحرب”.

وتوجه السيد نصر الله للإسرائيليين بالقول إن عليهم أن ينصحوا نتنياهو “بتسهيل حصول حزب الله على صواريخ دقيقة من أجل مصلحتهم”، وأكد “تم إنجاز حصولنا على الصواريخ الدقيقة ومحاولة نتنياهو منعها عبر قصف سوريا غير مجدية”، وتابع “لم نعد بحاجة لنقل أي صواريخ دقيقة لأننا نمتلك العدد الكافي من أجل أي مواجهة مقبلة”.

القيادة السورية لن تترك أرضها للإرهابيين والأولوية في إدلب للحل السياسي

وفي الشأن السوري، أكد نصر الله أن الوضع في سوريا اليوم “في أفضل حال مقارنة بالعام 2011، لكن لا يمكن الحديث عن إنجاز شامل” حيث أن هناك مأزق كردي تركي أميركي فيما يتعلق بشرق الفرات.

وأكد نصر الله أن الفصائل الكردية المدعومة أميركياً في شرق الفرات هي “ممولة خليجياً”، وكشف أن “خطوط التفاوض مفتوحة بين الجيش السوري والقوات الكردية”.

وحول إعلان الرئيس التركي رجب طيب إردوغان رغبته في تطبيق اتفاق “اضنة” مع الحكومة السورية، اعتبر السيد نصر الله أن ذلك يشير إلى أنه يجب التسليم بأن الحل الوحيد هو انتشار الجيش السوري.

ورأى نصر الله أن الجيش السوري وحلفاؤه قادرون على حسم المعركة في الشمال السوري، وأردف أنه “عند الانتهاء من داعش في شرق الفرات فإن الجيش السوري وحلفاؤه سيرتاحون”، ووفق السيد نصر الله فقد تم استكمال التعزيزات لتحرير إدلب، لكن “تركيا منعت ذلك تحت أسباب إنسانية”، معتبراً أن “الخيارات مفتوحة بالنسبة لإدلب لكن الأولوية هي للحل السياسي”.

وتطرق الأمين العام إلى الإقتتال فيما بين فصائل المعارضة في إدلب الذي “أظهر تجاوزها للقيم التي تدعيها بنفسها”، فسيطرة جبهة النصرة على إدلب “تحرج تركيا لأنها مصنفة عالمياً بأنها إرهابية”، وتابع “على تركيا إيجاد حل لإدلب أو ترك الأمر للقيادة السورية التي لن تترك أرضها للإرهابيين”.

وعلاوة على ذلك، كشف نصر الله أن ما منع الجيش السوري وحلفاءه من استكمال معركة البوكمال هو “الولايات المتحدة”.

السوريون والإيرانيون رفضوا الطلب الأميركي بخروج القوات الإيرانية من سوريا

وحول الإنسحاب الأميركي من سوريا، رأى السيد نصر الله أن ترامب كان “صادقاً بوعوده الانتخابية وحقق جزءاً منها، بينها مسألة إرسال القوات الأميركية للخارج”، فقد طلبت جهات أميركية منه مهلة لسحب القوات من سوريا و”قد أمهلهم لذلك 6 أشهر”، وفق نصر الله.

وكشف نصر الله أن الأميركيين “أبلغوا الروس أنهم مستعدون للخروج بالكامل من سوريا مقابل خروج الإيرانيين”، وأردف أن “بوتين أبلغ روحاني بالمطلب الأميركي الذي أبلغني بذلك والروس أبلغوا السوريين أيضاً”.

وفي السياق، رفض الإيرانيون الطلب الأميركي “لأنهم موجودون في سوريا بناء على طلب دمشق”، وفق نصر الله الذي أشار إلى أن “الروس اكتفوا بنقل الرسالة الإيرانية إلى الأميركيين الذين عادوا ليكثفوا عملياتهم”.

كذلك وبحسب السيد نصر الله رفض السوريون المطلب الأميركي الذي نقله الروس بخروج الإيرانيين، ورأى السيد أن سحب القوات الأميركية هو “استراتيجية جديدة وهو النسخة الترامبية في المشروع الأميركي”، إلا أن القرار هو “بحد ذاته فشل وهزيمة”.

وفي هذا السياق، كشف السيد نصر الله أن ممثلي قوات سوريا الديمقراطية “قسد” بعد تخلي الأميركيين عنهم طلبوا “لقاءنا في بيروت وتوجهوا إلى روسيا والعراق للوساطة مع الدولة السورية”.

وتطرق السيد نصر الله إلى الانفتاح العربي الحاصل مؤخراً باتجاه سوريا، معتبراً أن سببه “قرار ترامب بالانسحاب من سوريا”، وكشف أن زيارة الرئيس السوداني عمر البشير إلى دمشق حصلت “بضوء أخضر سعودي”.

وفي هذا التفصيل، قال نصر الله إن قرارات ترامب أخافت السعودية والإمارات اللتين اعتبرتا “أن تركيا هي الخطر الأكبر وليس إيران”، وعليه زار (وزير الخارجية الأميركي) بومبيو المنطقة “لطمأنة دولها بعد إحباطها من قرارات ترامب”.

وفي قضية عودة سوريا إلى جامعة الدول العربية، كشف نصر الله أنه جرى نقل رسالة لدمشق لتطلب بنفسها ذلك، لكن الرد السوري كان “بأن من أخرجها من جامعة الدول العربية عليه بنفسه إعادتها”، وأكد أن “هناك مسؤولين عرب كباراً بينهم أمنيون زاروا سوريا لا يمكنني الكشف عن هويتهم”.

وشدد نصرالله على أن الأميركيين “لن يستطيعوا أن يفعلوا أكثر مما فعلوا، وهم سيغادرون سوريا والمنطقة والمحبط الأكبر هو نتنياهو”، فهم “تركوا حتى أفغانستان لطالبان وهي هزيمة مدوية لهم في هذا البلد”.

ورأى السيد نصر الله أن “ترامب لن يشن حرباً من أجل أي كان وبلاده ليست في وضعية شن حرب جديدة على منطقتنا.. وهو شن حرب على إيران بواسطة دول المنطقة لإسقاطها”.

هناك احتمال بتعاطٍ مختلف مع الاعتداءات الإسرائيلية على سوريا

وحول الاعتداءات الإسرائيلية على سوريا، هدد السيد نصر الله بأن “هناك احتمالاً باتخاذ قرار بتعاطٍ مختلف مع الاعتداءات الإسرائيلية لأن ما حصل أخيراً خطير جداً”.

ولفت نصر الله في هذا السياق إلى أن الأولوية في الفترة السابقة كانت بإنهاء المعركة الداخلية في سوريا و”هذا تغير مهم.. فعلى نتنياهو أن يكون حذراً في التمادي فيما يقوم به في سوريا لأن محور المقاومة ودمشق سيردون”، وأردف أن “العامل الروسي لا يستطيع أن يفتح كل الهوامش للإسرائيلي”.

وعاد السيد نصر الله ليعتبر أن مشروع نتنياهو في سوريا “فشل وخسر كل رهاناته.. ونتنياهو وايزنكوت لم يتمكنا من منع وصول الإمكانات إلى لبنان وهذا فشل آخر”.. “كما فشل نتنياهو في تحقيق هدف إخراج إيران من سوريا”.


لم يعد بإمكان ابن سلمان فعل شيء لـ “صفقة القرن”

فلسطينياً، رأى السيد نصر الله أنه لا يمكن القول إن صفقة القرن انتهت وأن (ولي العهد السعودي) “محمد بن سلمان هو الضلع الأهم فيها ومهمته هي التسويق لها مقابل 50 عاماً من البقاء في العرش”، لكنه “لم يعد يستطيع فعل شيء لصفقة القرن”.

وأردف نصر الله مصرحاً أنه ليس هناك أي تنظيم فلسطيني يمكن أن يقبل بصفقة القرن، مؤكداً أنه لدى حزب الله علاقة مع جميع الفصائل الفلسطينية و”علاقتنا مع السلطة جيدة”.

ولفت نصر الله إلى أن علاقة سوريا مع الفلسطينيين جيدة “لكن مشلكتها الوحيدة هي مع حماس، ومحور المقاومة حريص على علاقة جيدة مع جميع الفصائل الفلسطينية”.

وفي الشأن البحريني، أوضح السيد أن المعارضة طلبت وساطات مع دول عربية بينها قطر وتركيا والكويت لحل الأزمة لكن السعودية “تمنع حصول حوار”.

وبالانتقال إلى اليمن، وصف نصر الله صمود اليمنيين في وجه حرب السعودية بـ “الأسطوري” وأن “التجربة اليمنية هي الأجدى بتدريسها”. وفي الوقت عينه، أكد نصر الله أنه “يجب إبقاء الحذر في اليمن لكن هناك قرار بضرورة التوجه إلى الحل السياسي”، وختم نصر الله هذا المحور بالقول “السعودية والإمارات اكتشفتا أنهما لا يستطيعان إخضاع الشعب اليمني رغم حربهما الشرسة”.


حزب الله لا يحكم لبنان ومعركته الأساسية هي ضد الفساد

وحول القمة الاقتصادية العربية التي عقدت في بيروت مؤخراً، اعتبر نصر الله أن “الكلام السياسي فيها عن القدس ممتاز كما أن كلام الرئيس اللبناني ووزير الخارجية عن إعادة سوريا إلى جامعة الدول العربية وحول مسألة إخفاء الإمام موسى الصدر مهم جداً”.

وفي الشأن الداخلي، أكد نصر الله أن العلاقة مع الرئيس ميشال عون “هي على ما هي عليه من المودة والتوافق”، مشيراً إلى أن “مواقف الرئيس عون صلبة ولم تتزعزع العلاقة بيننا رغم الاختلافات في أمور معينة وهناك تواصل بيني وبينه لحل أي التباس”.

وأكد نصر الله أن “ما عزز الصداقة مع رئيس الجمهورية ووزير الخارجية هو ما حصل في عدوان تموز 2006″، موضحاً أن “التفاهم بين حزب الله والتيار الوطني ما زال قائماً وصامداً”، وطالب السيد القاعدتان الشعبيتان لحزب الله والتيار الوطني الحر بعدم التأثر بالاختلاف الحاصل أحياناً بينهما.

ونفى السيد نصر الله ما يتردد حول رغبة الحزب بتغيير اتفاق الطائف، وأنه أمر لا أساس له.

وأكد الأمين العام لحزب الله الإصرار على تشكيل حكومة في لبنان بأسرع وقت ممكن، مؤكداً أن إيران وسوريا “لم تتدخلا أبداً في مسألة تأليف الحكومة”.

وأكد السيد تمسك الحزب بتمثيل اللقاء التشاوري بوزير في الحكومة العتيدة، وأضاف “هناك مساعٍ جدية حالياً لتأليف الحكومة وهناك عقدتان تتعلق باللقاء التشاوري وتوزيع الحقائب”.

وفي الوضع الاقتصادي، جدد نصر الله التأكيد على جدية الحزب في حل الوضع الاقتصادي ومكافحة الفساد، مشدداً على أن المعركة ضد الفساد “طويلة وصعبة ومعقدة”، مشيراً في هذا الصدد إلى أنه “يجب ايجاد تغييرات في القوانين لحل مشكلة الفساد في لبنان”.

وفنّد نصر الله منافذ الفساد قائلاً إنه “يجب التخلي عن التلزيم بالتراضي والتوجه إلى المناقصات لحل بعض مشاكل الفساد”، وأكد أن الخطوة الأولى في مواجهة الفساد هي سد بابه عبر تشريعات وقوانين وآليات.. وأضاف “التدخل السياسي في القضاء هو من أسباب الفساد في لبنان”.

وفي العلاقة مع تيار المستقبل، تحدث السيد نصر الله قائلاً إن الرئيس سعد الحريري “يحاول تدوير الزوايا مع كل القوى السياسية في لبنان”، مؤكداً أن الحزب حريص على الانفتاح والتعاون مع الرئيس الحريري “رغم مهاجمتنا من قبل تيار المستقبل”.

وختم السيد نصر الله حوار العام بالقول إن حزب الله “لا يحكم لبنان ولا يريد ذلك ومعركته هي مكافحة الفساد.. لأننا نؤمن بأن لبنان لا يمكن أن يُدار إلا من قبل جميع مكوناته”.

%d bloggers like this: