سلفيت تحيي حرب استنزاف عبد الناصر والهجوم الاستراتيجي مستمرّ!

مارس 19, 2019

محمد صادق الحسيني

1 ـ انّ محاولة الاجهزة الأمنية الإسرائيلية، ومتعاونين محليين في فلسطين المحتلة، فرض توقيت ايّ حرب على المقاومة الفلسطينية وربما على قوات حلف المقاومة، عبر إطلاق الصواريخ المشبوهة من قطاع غزة باتجاة تل أبيب باءت بالفشل الذريع…!

ومع انكشاف المخطط الإسرائيلي بشكل فوري وضبط النفس الذي تحلت بة فصائل المقاومة، بالاضافة الى عجز نتن ياهو عن دخول مواجهة عسكرية واسعة مع المقاومة الفلسطينية، كل هذة الظروف مجتمعة ادّت ليس فقط إلى فشل المخطط بل إلى اشتعال حرب الجنرالات المسعورة داخل عصابات الصهاينة…!

2 ـ انّ العملية التي نفذها فدائي فلسطيني، عمره 19 عاماً بالقرب من مستوطنة ارئيل المقامة على اراضي بلدة سلفيت المصادرة، جاءت لتكشف عجز الجيش الإسرائيلي التامّ، ليس فقط في مواجهة حلف المقاومة أو أحد مكوّناته، بل حتى عن مواجهة فدائي واحد، لم يكن مسلحاً وإنما غنم سلاحه، بندقية من طراز M 16 من جنود الاحتلال الذين اشتبك معهم في موقعين بعد العملية الأولى وأثناء عمليات المطاردة والتي شارك فيها قرابة أربعين ألف جندي «إسرائيلي»، علماً انّ مساحة المنطقة التي تجري فيها المطاردة لا تزيد عن مائة كيلومتر مربع.

لذلك لكم ان تتخيّلوا ما الذي سيواجهه الجيش «الإسرائيلي»، في حال حصول حرب على الجبهة الشمالية… حيث ستكون خطوط إمداده تحت رحمة الفدائيين الفلسطينيين، الذين سبق لهم ان طبّقوا هذا التكتيك في ستينيات وسبعينيات القرن الماضي.

3 ـ فقبيل البدء بحرب الاستنزاف المصرية، على جبهة قناة السويس 1968 ـ 1970، عقد الرئيس جمال عبد الناصر اجتماعاً مع الشهيد ياسر عرفات، الذي كان قائداً لحركة فتح ولم تكن التنظيمات الفدائية قد دخلت منظمة التحرير بعد، سأل خلاله الرئيس عبد الناصر الشهيد أبو عمار عما إذا كانت حركة فتح قادرة على تثبيت لواء قوة «إسرائيلية» بحجم لواء في غور الأردن غرب النهر حيث انّ الغور يسمّى كذلك نسبة الى النهر الذي اسمة نهر الأردن وذلك للتخفيف من الضغط العسكري «الإسرائيلي» على جبهة القناة عند الضرورة. فأجاب أبو عمار بأنّ قوات الثورة الفلسطينية قادرة على تثبيت فرقة الى فرقتين حوالي ثلاثين الف جندي وليس لواءً واحداً فقط. فقال له عبد الناصر: إذاً، توكلنا على الله.

وكان ما كان آنذاك.

4 ـ وعليه نستطيع القول انّ من الممنوع على نتن ياهو وحكومته وجنرالاته ان يفرضوا على قوات حلف المقاومة توقيت البدء بتنفيذ المرحلة النهائية من الهجوم الاستراتيجي، الذي بدأ في حلب، والذي لن يتوقف الا بتحرير القدس وإعادتها عاصمة لكلّ فلسطين.

وإذا كان صحيحاً القول بأنّ كلّ ما يلزم للبدء بتنفيذ المرحلة النهائية من الهجوم الاستراتيجي قد أصبح جاهزاً، كصواريخ حزب الله الدقيقة التي تغطي كلّ فلسطين المحتلة وجيش من القوات الشعبية، على اهبة الاستعداد في كلّ من سورية والعراق، يبلغ تعداده ما يربو على مائتي ألف مقاتل، كما صرّح يوم أمس الأول اللواء محمد جعفري قائد الحرس الثوري الإيراني.

5 ـ لكن قرار بدء المعركة لن يتخذه نتن ياهو وإنما قادة أركان جيوش كلّ من إيران والعراق وسورية المجتمعين في دمشق لمناقشة تفاصيل ذلك ووضع الخطط الاستراتيجية اللازمة للمستقبل والكفيلة بتغيير خارطة المنطقة باتجاه إنهاء الوجود الاستعماري الأميركي والأوروبي منها بشكل كامل. الأمر الذي سيساهم بشكل كبير في إعادة تشكيل ميزان القوى الدولي وإنهاء سيطرة وهيمنة القطب الواحد، أيّ الولايات المتحدة، على مقدرات شعوب العالم.

6 ـ وها هو رئيس أركان الجيش العراقي، الذي شارك في كلّ الحروب العربية ضدّ الاحتلال «الإسرائيلي» لفلسطين، يعلن من دمشق عن قرب فتح معبر حدودي بين العراق وسورية بشكل كامل ودائم. وهو الأمر الذي يعني فتح الطريق البري الرابط بين موسكو وبيروت، عبر كلّ من طهران وبغداد ودمشق، وما يعنيه ذلك من أبعاد استراتيجية في المنطقة سيكون لها ما بعدها في أقرب الآجال، خاصة أنّ من أعلن عن قرب فتح المعبر ليس وزيراً للمواصلات وانما رئيساً لجيش العراق البطل، الذي تسانده عشرات آلاف الوحدات العسكرية المقاتلة والمنضوية تحت لواء الحشد الشعبي العراقي.

ولمزيد من التوضيح فمن الواجب القول بأنّ هذا التطوّر يشكل رسالة واضحة لقوات الاحتلال الأميركي في كلّ من سورية والعراق… مؤداها: ارحلوا وإلا…!

7 ـ هذا في الوقت الذي تقف فية الولايات المتحدة عاجزة عن الدخول في حروب جديدة، سواء في سورية والعراق أو غيرها من مناطق العالم، رغم أنها لا زالت قادرة على إشعال الفتن والحروب الداخلية في مناطق عديدة من العالم. ولكنها وعلى الرغم من ذلك ستواجة هزيمة ساحقة، أمام روسيا والصين، في أي حرب قادمة كما ورد في دراسة نشرتها مؤسسة راند الأميركيةRAND Corpoation قبل أيّام، علماً أنّ هذة المؤسسة تعتبر من المؤسسات المحافظة والقريبة جداً من الرئيس ترامب.

8 ـ من هنا يجب النظر إلى الزيادة التي طرأت على ميزانية البنتاغون، للعام 2019، التي بلغت سبعمائة وخمسين مليار دولار، ليس فقط على أنها زيادة تهدف الى مزيد من الاستعدادات لشنّ حروب جديدة في العالم وإنما أيضاً من أجل تصحيح الكثير من الخلل الذي تعاني منه الجيوش الأميركية في مجال التسليح.

فها هي البنتاغون تطلب قبل أيّام قليلة، حسب ما نشره موقع Task and Purpose الأميركي، شراء 10193 عشرة صاروخاً مدفعية صاروخية موجهة في موازنة 2020، ما يعني زيادة 26 عن عدد الصواريخ التي تمّ شراؤها في ميزانية 2019، والتي كان عددها 8101، بينما الرقم المطلوب شراؤه للعام 2020 زيادة تبلغ 43 عن ما تمّ شراؤة في ميزانية 2018، حيث كان عدد الصواريخ التي تمّ شراؤها آنذاك 6936 صاروخاً فقط.

وحسب ما ورد في حيثيات طلب البنتاغون، التي نشرها الموقع الأميركي المشار اليه أعلاه، فإنّ البنتاغون تخطط لتوجيه هذة الصواريخ الى كلّ من روسيا والصين.

9 ـ كما يجب على المرء ان لا يتجاهل الأوضاع السيئة التي تعاني منها القوات الجوية والبحرية الأميركية، بما فيها المشاكل الهائلة التي تواجه طائرة أف 35 وانكشافها تماماً أمام سطوة شبكات الدفاع الجوي الروسية من طراز «أس 400» و «أس 500».

كما لا بدّ من الانتباه الى الاوضاع المشابهة والتي تعاني منها جيوش دول حلف الشمال الأطلسي الرئيسية، مثل بريطانيا وألمانيا وفرنسا. اذ نشرت صحيفة «فيلت ام سونتاغ» الألمانية المحافظة يوم الأحد الفائت تقريراً حول التقييم السرّي لقدرات الجيش الألماني العسكرية جاء فيه انّ 6.11 فقط من مروحيات الجيش من طراز تايغر النمر ، وعددها 53 مروحية، جاهزة للعمل، بينما هناك 5.17 فقط من مروحيات النقل الثقيلة، من طراز NH، جاهزة للعمل.

وهو الأمر الذي أثار جدلاً واسعاً في ألمانيا، رغم محاولة المفتش العام للجيش الألماني، ايرهارد تسرون، التخفيف من وقع التقرير على الرأي العام وذلك من خلال تصريحه بأنّ 70 من قوات ومعدات الجيش الألماني قادرة على العمل بشكل عام.

عالمهم ينهار رويداً رويداً فيما عالمنا ينهض ساعة بعد ساعة.

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

Advertisements

US Duplicity over Golan Demolishes Posturing on Crimea

US Duplicity over Golan Demolishes Posturing on Crimea

US Duplicity over Golan Demolishes Posturing on Crimea

In a controversial snub to international law, the United States signaled last week that it is moving to officially recognize the Golan Heights as part of Israeli territory. If the US does so, then it forfeits any moral authority to sanction Russia over allegations of “annexing Crimea”.

In its annual US State Department report, the section dealing with the Golan Heights reportedly refers to the contested area as “Israeli-controlled”, not “Israeli-occupied”. The change in wording deviates from United Nations resolutions and international norm which use the term “Israeli-occupied” to designate the land Israel annexed from Syria following the 1967 Six Day War.

Israel has occupied the western part of the Golan since 1967 as a spoil from that war. In 1981, Tel Aviv formally annexed the Syrian territory. However, the UN Security Council in 1981, including the US, unanimously condemned the annexation as illegal. The resolution mandates Israel to return the land to Syria which has historical claim to the entire Golan. The area of 1,800 square kilometers is a strategic elevation overlooking the northern Jordan Valley.

If Washington confirms its recent indications of recognizing the Golan as officially part of Israel, the development would mark an egregious flouting of international law.

But what’s more, such a move totally prohibits Washington from posturing with presumed principle over the issue of Crimea, the Black Sea peninsula which since 2014 voluntarily became part of Russia.

Just last month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo repeated accusations against Russia of “annexing” Crimea. Pompeo insisted that US sanctions against Moscow would be maintained until Russia “returns Crimea to Ukraine”.

“The world has not forgotten the cynical lies Russia employed to justify its aggression and mask its attempted annexation of Ukrainian territory,” he said. “The United States will maintain respective sanctions against Russia until the Russian government returns control of Crimea to Ukraine.”

Last year, Pompeo’s State Department issued a ‘Crimea Declaration’ in which it was stated that, “Russia undermines a bedrock of international principle shared by democratic states: that no country can change the borders of another by force.”

Claims by Washington and the European Union of “illegal annexation” of Crimea by Russia are the central basis for five years of economic sanctions imposed on Moscow. Those sanctions have contributed to ever-worsening tensions with Russia and the build-up of NATO forces along Russia’s borders.

Those claims are, however, highly contestable. The people of Crimea voted in a legally constituted referendum in March 2014 to secede from Ukraine and to join the Russian Federation. That referendum followed an illegal coup in Kiev in February 2014 backed by the US and Europe against a legally elected president, Viktor Yanukovych. Historically, Crimea has centuries of shared cultural heritage with Russia. Its erstwhile position within the state of Ukraine was arguably an anomaly of the Cold War and subsequent break-up of the Soviet Union.

In any case, there is scant comparison between the Golan Heights and Crimea, save, that is, for the latest hypocrisy in Washington. While Crimea and its people are arguably historically part of Russia, the Golan Heights are indisputably a sovereign part of Syria which was forcibly annexed by Israeli military occupation.

The illegality of Israel’s occupation of Golan is a matter of record under international law as stipulated in UNSC Resolution 497.

There is no such international mandate concerning Crimea. Claims of Russia’s “annexation” are simply a matter of dubious political assertion made by Washington and its European allies.

The latest move by Washington towards recognizing Golan as part of Israel – in defiance of international law – comes on the back of several other recent developments.

US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham made a tour of Israeli-occupied Golan last week in the company of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pointedly transported by an IDF military helicopter. Graham said following his tour that he would recommend the Trump administration to officially recognize the area as under Israeli sovereignty.

Currently, there is legislation going through both the US Senate and House of Representatives which is aimed at declaring the entire Golan as Israeli territory.

The stark shift in pro-Israeli bias in Washington under the Trump administration is consistent with the White House declaring at the end of 2017 that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Again, that move by President Trump overturned international consensus and UN resolutions which have stipulated Jerusalem to be a shared capital between Israel and a future Palestinian state, to be worked out by (defunct) peace negotiations.

Why Washington has taken up the Golan issue as a prize for Israel at this time is not precisely clear. It could be seen as the Trump administration giving a political boost to Netanyahu for next month’s elections.

There has been previous speculation that Trump is doing the bidding for a US-based oil company, Genie Oil, which is linked to his administration through his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s family investments. The New Jersey company has a subsidiary in Israel, is tied to the Netanyahu government, and has long been aiming to drill the Golan for its abundant oil resources.

The Golan move could also be retribution meted out to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over his country’s historic defeat of the US-backed covert war for regime change. The nearly eight-year war was also covertly backed by Israel which sponsored jihadist militia operating out of the Golan against the Syrian army. Having vanquished the US regime-change plot, thanks to crucial military support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, the payback could be Washington stepping up Israeli claims to annex the Golan.

But whatever the background explanation is, the initiative by Washington to legalize the annexation of Golan by Israel is a brazen violation of international law. In doing so, the US is officially sponsoring war crimes and theft of Syria’s sovereign territory. Or as the Crimea Declaration would put it: “changing the borders of another country by force” – supposedly a “bedrock principle” that Washington continually sermonizes about to Russia.

Crimea and Golan are different issues of territorial dispute, as noted already. Nevertheless, the duplicity of Washington over Golan makes its posturing on Crimea null and void. If the Europeans meekly go along with the US move on Golan, then they too should shut their mouths and their moralizing sanctions over Crimea.

President Al-Assad: Syrian-Russian High-Level Coordination Enhanced Syria’s Steadfastness in Confrontation of Terrorism

DAMASCUS, (ST)– President Bashar Al-Assad has stressed that the Syrian-Russian joint action and high-level coordination in all domains, mainly militarily and politically, have been among the key factors that enhanced Syria’s steadfastness in the face of terrorism and that contributed to achieving successive victories against Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra terror organizations and other terrorist groups.

President Al-Assad was speaking during his meeting on Tuesday with Russia’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu, who affirmed his country’s determination to continue the fight against terrorism alongside the Syrian Arab Army in order to complete the liberation of the Syrian territories from terrorism and to maintain Syria’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.

Talks dealt with the situation in Idleb and East of the Euphrates. The two sides affirmed the need to continue joint action to reach suitable solutions that restore security and stability in these two areas. They also agreed on adopting all procedures necessary to prevent Syria’s enemies from achieving in Idleb and east of Euphrates what they failed to achieve over the past years of the war.

Some countries fight terrorism only in their officials’ statements

Some countries and forces fight terrorism only in the statements of their officials while they actually support it and keep protecting terrorists in some areas, said President Al-Assad, stressing that these policies have caused many civilian casualties and contributed to expanding terrorism to other areas.

The meeting was attended by Defense Minister Ali Abdullah Ayyoub, head of the National Security Bureau Ali Mamlouk, Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ayman Soussan, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin and the Russian Ambassador in Damascus.

Hamda Mustafa

Related Videos

Related

Hyper-Hypocrisy of The West about ISIS

Hyper-Hypocrisy of The West about ISIS

ERIC ZUESSE | 19.03.2019 | WORLD / MIDDLE EAST

Hyper-Hypocrisy of The West about ISIS

During the period of 17 September to 11 December of 2016, the United States and its allies carried out a massive operation to move ISIS’s surviving jihadists who were in the oil-producing Iraqi region of Mosul, into the Syrian oil-producing region of Deir Ezzor and Palmyra. This was done so that those oil-stealing-and-selling jihadists in Iraq would now be stealing Syria’s oil and would thereby increase the likelihood of overthrowing Syria’s long-existing non-sectarian Government. The US and its allies would then replace that Government by one which would be controlled by the fundamentalist Sunni Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia, the long-time leading oil-power, and which family are America’s main foreign ally. The Sauds are crucial to maintaining the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The US aristocracy rely upon them.

Now that ISIS is being defeated by Syria’s Government (and by its allies Russia and Iran) in Syria, the United States and its allies are trying to find other governments that will take them in as refugees. It’s part of a deal the US regime reached with ISIS.

The issue of what to do with the thousands of surviving but (temporarily) defeated ISIS members — and with their spouses and children — has raised hypocrisy to perhaps the highest level in all of history. Its background needs to be understood if one wants to understand the sources of that enormous hypocrisy. Here’s this background:

When Russia started bombing ISIS in Syria on 30 September 2015, it greatly disturbed the US regime, which therefore started on 12 October 2015 to air-drop weapons into that area so as to help the jihadists to shoot down Russia’s jets, which were bombing ISIS. America’s Fox News Channel headlined “US military airdrops 50 tons of ammo for Syrian fighters, after training mission ends”. The US didn’t start bombing ISIS in Syria until 16 November 2015, and the US Government’s excuse for not having bombed them earlier was “This is our first strike against tanker trucks, and to minimize risks to civilians, we conducted a leaflet drop prior to the strike.” They pretended that it was done out of compassion — not in order to extend for as long as possible ISIS’s success in taking over territory in Syria.

And then on 26 February 2019, Syria’s government news-agency reported that the US had sent to the US Federal Reserve 40+ tons of gold that ISIS had accumulated from selling, on the international black markets, oil from Syria’s oil-producing region around Deir Ezzor — Syria’s oil stolen by ISIS and the proceeds now being stolen yet again by the US regime — and this gold now being sent to the US (On March 8th I reported the further background and context of that US theft from Syria.) The US regime had offered to ISIS-members who were in Syria’s oil-producing region a choice either to become captured and killed by Syria’s Government, or else for them to give to the US that gold, and the option which was selected by the jihadists was to give the gold to the US, which is therefore now trying to find other countries to send the jihadists to as ‘refugees’ (since Syria certainly doesn’t want them, and neither does the US regime). The US regime is honoring its commitments to those ‘former’ ISIS members and their families, to assist them to find countries which will accept those people as ‘refugees’. Sweden, being very liberal (meaning ideologically very confused), happens to be one of these countries, and is actually considering and debating whether to allow them in.

Zero Hedge is perhaps the keenest news-site for exposing The West’s rampant hypocrisies (and so all of The West’s propagandistic ’news’-sites hate it and call it ‘fake news’ even though it actually is more reliably accurate than the mainstream ones themselves are); and, on March 10th, it pointed out that Sweden was in a flurry over whether to accept, as refugees, ISIS jihadists who have escaped, and their spouses and children. Zero Hedge truthfully pointed out that,

Sweden’s new government, which was finally formed in January after months of delay, is introducing policies that will lead to more immigration into Sweden — despite the main governing party, the Social Democrats, having run for office on a promise to tighten immigration policies.
The right to family reunion for those people granted asylum in Sweden who do not have refugee status is being reintroduced — a measure that is estimated to bring at least 8,400 more immigrants to Sweden in the coming three years. According to the Minister of Migration, Morgan Johansson, this measure will “strengthen integration,” although he has not explained how.
“I think it is a very good humanitarian measure; 90 percent [of those expected to come] are women and children who have lived for a long time in refugee camps, [and] who can now be reunited with their father or husband in Sweden”, Johansson said.

This is supposed to be ‘democracy’?

However, that article, as noted at Zero Hedge, was written by Judith Bergman, of the Gatestone Institute. Sometimes, even such vicious propaganda-organizations, as that, produce authentic news, and here was such an instance. (It’s yet another reason why arguing ad-hominem, instead of strictly — that is, 100% — ad-rem, is essential to avoid, in order to determine truth and reject lies. That was a truthful article. Though Bergman wrote for a hate-mongering anti-Muslim site, the reporting in it was honest and factual. So, here’s some ad-hominem background to it, not as a part of the argument in this particular case — regarding Sweden’s debate over whether to accept former ISIS members as refugees — but instead as context explaining how this truth came to be published by the hate-mongering Gatestone:)

The Gatestone Institute is a rabidly pro-Israeli-Jews, and rabidly anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim operation, which was founded and is run by the heir and grand-daughter, Nina Rosenwald, of the biggest early (1895) investor in Sears Roebuck & Co., Julius Rosenwald. He died in 1932. His heir and son was Nina’s father, and in 1939 he“was one of three founding members of the United Jewish Appeal (UJA).[12] [Nina] Rosenwald’s mother, a professional violinist, was a refugee from both the Russian Revolution and Nazi Germany.[9].” Nina, being not very bright, was never able to rid herself of the prejudices her parents felt against Palestinians and generally against Muslims (since Israel’s main supremacism is against Muslims, because Israel’s ruling ethnicity, Jews, have been stealing land from Muslims). Nina identifies herself as “a human rights activist”. (As was said at the start here, this issue “has raised hypocrisy to perhaps the highest level in all of history.”) She had, in fact, hired John Bolton as Gatestone’s Chairman; and, for his service as that, during June 2017 to March 2018 (when he became hired as Trump’s National Security Advisor), Bolton received $310,000. So, Bill Berkowitz headlined on 27 September 2018 “Meet Nina Rosenwald, the Sears Heiress Seeding Islamophobia at Home and Abroad”, and he brought together and linked to the great reporting by Max Blumenthal and by Lee Fang, documenting the Gatestone Institute’s rabid global hate-mongering for Israel.

But, in this particular case (the article by Judith Bergman), there was no deceit, because nothing in her reporting violated Nina Rosenwald’s biggest hatred, hatred of Muslims — so, these truths were acceptable to Rosenwald. Bergman’s article happened to be truthful Israeli propaganda. (After all: some propaganda is truthful.)

The Israeli regime won’t have any credibility whatsoever unless it condemns Sweden’s compassion for jihadists and for the wives and children of jihadists. Israel’s Minister of Justice had endorsed exterminating all Palestinians, but that rationale — sheer bigotry — for opposing them, isn’t suitable for foreign consumption, and so it was almost immediately disappeared from its public posting (shown there at that link). If Israel can’t pretend to be against Muslims on account of jihadists, then Israel’s barbaric treatment of its Palestinians won’t make any sense at all to the many fools (mainly in America, Israel’s chief patron) who support Israel (such as the Rosenwalds do). The US regime hides the barbarous reality of Israel, but that reality isn’t blacked-out quite as much in the rest of the world; so, Israel can’t afford to be publicly silent regarding jihadists, even in cases where the US regime would prefer such silence. Obviously, the US regime wants Sweden to accept those ‘former’ ISIS members (because the US regime aims to conquer Russia and all nations — such as Syria — that are allied with Russia, and uses ISIS, Al Qaeda, and nazis, as “boots-on-the-ground” mercenaries, in order to do that), and so this ISIS-as-refugees issue is one on which the American regime and the Israeli regime happen to disagree.

Bergman closed her article by describing the Swedish Government’s efforts to be compassionate toward jihadists while the Swedish Government also provides an appearance of caring for the safety of non-jihadist (the vast majority of) Swedes:

On a positive note, however, at the end of February, the Swedish government presented plans to introduce legislation that would criminalize membership of a terrorist organization. This new law would enable the prosecuting of returning ISIS fighters who cannot be connected to a specific crime, but who were proven to have been part of a terrorist organization. Critics have pointed out that it has taken years for the government to take steps to criminalize membership of terror organizations.

Sweden is hypocritically ‘neutral’, but actually a vassal nation of the United States. Sweden is being pushed by its master, the US regime, to accept some of the people the US Government had been protecting in order for the US to become enabled to take over Syria and to deliver it to the US aristocracy’s chief ally the Sauds; and, so, the Swedish Government is now trying to square this circle, in order to satisfy everyone at least somewhat. This split loyalty (between the imperial master, and the domestic public) is what’s called ‘democracy’, nowadays. The master pulls one way, the public are confused or undecided, and the US regime’s other main Middle Eastern ally, Israel, is pulling in the exact opposite direction, on this particular matter. This is how international affairs actually are being decided. The various aristocracies come to an agreement on how to proceed. The respective publics are virtually ignored, except as fronts for their PR. That’s today’s international order, just as has been the case for thousands of years: it is agreements that are reached between aristocracies.

Back in September of 2018, the US regime was backed by the United Nations in opposing Russia’s and Syria’s plan simply to slaughter all of the tens of thousands of Al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists (and their families), whom the Syrian Government had exiled to Idlib, Syria’s most pro-jihadist province, and who were being collected there with the intention to destroy them all at the very end of the war — finally to finish them off there. Both Syria’s Government and Russia’s Government wanted simply to destroy them en-masse, at the war’s end. However, because of the success of that US-based (and also U.N.-backed) international propaganda campaign arguing that bombing them would be ‘inhumane’, those jihadists survive, and will probably also be moved to other nations. Sweden could become one such nation, if they decide to take in not only ‘former’ ISIS but ‘former’ Al Qaeda, as ’refugees’. The US has protected both of those groups, against Syria’s Government.

Hypocrisy exists when people don’t care enough about their values so as to think carefully through to decide what values — if any — they actually hold, and what their actual priorities are. Fools like that are the meat upon which their aristocrats constantly feast, producing, as the aristocracy’s excrements, bigots (such as jihadists, and such as the majority of Israelis — and such as people who accept those bigots). Without those fools, aristocrats would need to actually earn a living, instead of merely to live off the fat (the fools) of the land and thereby producing this waste-matter, bigots, who make things difficult for everybody else, including for any decent people who might happen to exist in the given receiving nation (such as in Sweden).

The origin of The West’s hypocrisies that claim to be supporting “human rights” and “democracy” around the world, while actually invading or overthrowing target-governments, go back at least as far as Cecil Rhodes in the late 1800s, and the rationale that’s given of it is entirely fraudulent. It is the difference between, on the one hand, an authentic revolution, which can sometimes produce a democracy, versus, on the other hand, a coup or else an invasion, neither of which can, nor is actually designed to, produce a democracy. But the PR has to say the reason for an invasion or coup or sanctions (such as against Venezuela or Iran or Syria or Libya or Iraq or Ukraine) is to promote ‘human rights’ or ‘democracy’ or ‘oppose corruption’ in the given target-country that’s to be, basically, destroyed. Suckers are necessary, in order for this fraud — the actual aristocratic control of international relations — to succeed. And that’s how the system works. It works by that combination, of liars and fools.

Netanyahu in Moscow: the selection of words نتنياهو في موسكو: انتقاء الكلمات

 Netanyahu in Moscow: the selection of words

مارس 18, 2019

Written by Nasser Kandil,

It is normal that the Turkish President Recep Erdogan and the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are the last ones who want to recognize the Syrian victory, as it is normal that the maneuver in the battlefields and the prevarication in the commitment are the titles of their policy. The main beneficiary from the war on Syria, its destruction, and its fragmentation as a central pillar in the growing resistance axis is the occupation entity. And the aspiring party to dominate on the Arab and Islamic worlds to overthrow the heart of Arabism represented by Syria is the Justice and Development Party led by Recep Erdogan who combined his leaderships to form the Muslim Brotherhood along with his sticking to the capacities of Turkey the most important country in the region and his belonging to the NATO to form the main base for the aggression on Syria while he was dreaming of the new Ottoman.

The scrutiny of the Turkish and Israeli policies and movements must not be based on the expectation of the final recognition of the complete failure and loss, rather on the limitedness of their movement. It seems that the Russian presence in Syria is the title of the new equation on which the Turkish and Israeli considerations depend. In the same way, that the dropping of the Russian plane by Turkey in late 2015 was a gateway for a new equation drawn by Russia that made it draw the rules of engagement in Syria against Turkey, the dropping of the Russian plane by the occupation entity in late 2018 formed a similar event. And as the Turkish prevarication continued but under the ceiling of non –collision with Russia again, the occupation entity is doing the same. And as Erdogan remained talking about the Syrian threat on the security of Turkey, and undertakes to continue the military action, Netanyahu will remain talking about the threat on the security of the occupation entity and undertakes to continue the military action too.

Turkey does not offer anything positive for interpreting its pledges to Astana path, but at the same time it does not dare to do neither of these two things: a passive action that leads it to collision with the Syrian army and its allies. Second, the obstruction of any military action by the Syrian army and its allies against the armed groups. Turkey which remained talking about a safe zone which it wants to form by extracting a part of the Syrian geography by the force of occupation has become choosing its words. Therefore, the concept of the safe zone moved from the direct Turkish military control to the refusal of any domination, then to the refusal of any control is not trusted by Turkey just in order to meet the concept of Moscow to apply Adana Agreement and the preparation to be a partner in a border area in which the Russian military is deployed.

The occupation entity which will not abide by any positive commitment towards respecting the concept of the Syrian sovereignty has abided by two things; not to approach the Syrian airspace after the dropping of an Israeli aircraft by the Syrian air defense. Second, not to target vital locations of the Syrian army and governmental and civil figures of the Syrian sovereignty. The occupation entity which was talking about its intention to target the Iranian presence since the deployment of S-300 missiles in Syria has become choosing its words. After Netanyahu had talked that he would continue his raids, he talked before his visit to Moscow about an action against the Iranian presence without using military words, and now in Moscow he is using different words, that he will continue his work to prevent Iran from achieving its goals in Syria.

The decision of the leadership of the resistance axis resulting from the meeting which brought together the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and Imam Ali Al Khamenaei on the eve of Netanyahu’s visit to Moscow is to repel any Israeli aggression accordingly. Moscow knew this decision notified to Netanyahu, so it advised to pay attention to the threat of a serious embroilment in an uncontrolled confrontation. Therefore Netanyahu chose his words so eloquently.

 Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

نتنياهو في موسكو: انتقاء الكلمات

فبراير 28, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– من الطبيعي أن يكون الرئيس التركي رجب أردوغان ورئيس حكومة بنيامين نتنياهو آخر من يسلّم بالنصر السوري، وبسيادة غير منقوصة للدولة السورية. ومن الطبيعي أن تكون المناورة في الميدان والمراوغة في الالتزام هما عنوان سياسة كل منهما. فإذا كان من مستفيد رئيسي من الحرب على سورية لتدميرها وتفتيتها كقلعة مركزية في محور المقاومة وتنامي وتعاظم قوته في ظل القلق الوجودي من تعاظم وتنامي قوة هذا المحور، فهو كيان الاحتلال، وإذا كان من طامح للهيمنة على العالمين العربي والإسلامي من بوابة إسقاط قلب العروبة النابض الذي تمثله سورية، فهو حزب العدالة والتنمية بزعامة رجب أردوغان الذي جمع قيادته لتنظيم الأخوان المسلمين مع إمساكه بمقدرات تركيا الدولة الأهم في المنطقة، مع انتمائه لحلف الأطلسي، ليشكل القاعدة الرئيسية للعدوان على سورية وهو يعيش أحلام العثمانية الجديدة.

– المراقبة للسياسات والتحركات التركية والإسرائيلية، لا يجب أن تتم على خلفية وهم التوقع بلحظة تموضع نهائي عنوانه التسليم بالفشل الكامل والخسارة الكاملة، بل لاستكشاف درجة الضيق التي تعيشها هوامش الحركة المتاحة أمام كل منهما، وفي هذا المجال يبدو الحضور الروسي في سورية عنوان المعادلة الجديدة التي تتموضع عندها الحسابات التركية والإسرائيلية، وبمثل ما شكل إسقاط تركيا للطائرة الروسية نهاية العام 2015 مدخل رسم روسيا لمعادلة جديدة فتحت مسار تحكّم روسيا برسم قواعد الاشتباك في سورية بالنسبة لتركيا، شكل إسقاط جيش الاحتلال للطائرة الروسية في نهاية العام 2018 حدثاً مشابهاً، ومثلما استمرّت المراوغة التركية لكن تحت سقف عدم التصادم مجدداً مع روسيا، يسير كيان الاحتلال في الطريق ذاتها. ومثلما بقي أردوغان يتحدّث عن خطر على أمن تركيا من سورية ويتعهّد بمواصلة العمل عسكرياً ضده، سيبقى يتحدث نتنياهو عن خطر على أمن كيان الاحتلال ويتعهد بمواصلة العمل ضده.

– تركيا لم تُقدم على أي فعل إيجابي في ترجمة تعهداتها وفقاً لمسار أستانة، لكنها لم تجرؤ على أي من الأمرين التاليين، الأول هو فعل سلبي يوصلها إلى التصادم مع الجيش السوري وحلفائه، والثاني إعاقة عمل عسكري للجيش السوري وحلفائه بوجه الجماعات المسلحة، وتركيا التي بقيت تتحدّث عن المنطقة الآمنة التي تريد إقامتها باقتطاع جزء من الجغرافيا السورية بقوة الاحتلال، صارت تنتقي الكلمات فيتحرّك مفهوم المنطقة الآمنة من السيطرة العسكرية التركية المباشرة، إلى رفض أي سيطرة أخرى، إلى رفض أن تكون المنطقة بعهدة من لا تثق بهم تركيا، تمهيداً لملاقاة مفهوم موسكو لتطبيق اتفاق أضنة والاستعداد للدخول كشريك ضامن فيه ضمن منطقة حدودية تنتشر فيها الشرطة العسكرية الروسية.

– كبان الاحتلال الذي لن يقوم بتقديم أي التزام إيجابي نحو احترام مفهوم السيادة السورية، التزم بأمرين، الأول عدم التقرّب من الأجواء السورية منذ إسقاط الدفاعات الجوية السورية لطائرة إسرائيلية، والثاني الالتزام بعدم استهداف مواقع حيوية للجيش السوري ورموز حكومية ومدنية للسيادة السورية، وكيان الاحتلال الذي بقي بعد الإعلان عن نشر شبكة صواريخ الأس 300 في سورية، يتحدث عن نيته مواجهة واستهداف ما يصفه بالوجود الإيراني، صار ينتقي الكلمات في الحديث عن مضمون الاستهداف، فبعدما كان يقول نتنياهو إنه سيواصل غاراته، صار يتحدّث قبل زيارة موسكو عن العمل ضد الوجود الإيراني دون استخدام المفردات العسكرية. وهو في موسكو يستعمل كلمات أخرى، فيقول إنه سيواصل العمل لمنع إيران من تحقيق أهدافها في سورية.

– قرار قيادة محور المقاومة التي كان لقاء القمة للرئيس السوري بشار الأسد والإمام علي الخامنئي، منصتها الحاضرة عشية زيارة نتنياهو إلى موسكو، هو الردّ على كل عدوان إسرائيلي بما يتناسب معه كماً ونوعاً، وموسكو كانت بصورة هذا القرار الذي تبلّغه نتنياهو، مع نصيحة بالانتباه لمخاطر انزلاق جدي إلى مواجهة تخرج من تحت السيطرة، فجاءت البلاغة إلى لغة نتنياهو في انتقاء الكلمات.

Related Videos

Related Articles

المساران «الإسرائيلي» والفلسطيني

مارس 18, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– قبل أيام على صواريخ تل أبيب وعملية سلفيت النوعية البطولية، خرج أحد المستوطنين في تسجيل من باحة المسجد الأقصى يصف الفلسطينيين بالجبن، باعتبارهم مصنوعين من سكر ولم يخرجوا إلى المسجد الأقصى بسبب المطر خشية الذوبان، وبعد أيام قليلة كان المصنوعون من سكر يقصفون بصواريخ تتخطّى القبة الحديدة وتسقط في تل أبيب، وبعدها بأيام يقوم شاب فلسطيني بطعن جندي صهيوني وتجريده من سلاحه، وإطلاق النار بواسطة هذا السلاح على مجموعة من الجنود فيقتل ثلاثة منهم ويتوارى. ويظهر المساران الفلسطيني والإسرائيلي متعاكسين، يتبادلان الحال العربية الإسرائيلية قبل عقود، يوم كان الكلام الكبير للعرب والفعل الكبير للإسرائيليين، ليبدو اليوم أن الكلام الكبير للإسرائيليين حكاماً ومستوطنين، بينما الأفعال الكبيرة للفلسطينيين.

– خلال العقدين الماضيين، ومنذ العام 2000 سلك المساران الفلسطيني والإسرائيلي اتجاهين متعاكسين، فمنذ إجبار «إسرائيل» على الانسحاب دون مقابل أو تفاوض من جنوب لبنان، ومقابلها اندلاع انتفاضة المسجد الأقصى، بدأ المسار التصاعدي لحساب الفلسطينيين، ومقابله مسار الانحدار الإسرائيلي، وتلاها تحرير غزة عام 2005 والفشل الإسرائيلي في حرب تموز 2006، وها نحن اليوم في مرحلة ما بعد الفشل الدولي والإقليمي الذي كانت «إسرائيل» جزءاً عضوياً منه في الحرب على سورية، وتنامي قدرات محور المقاومة، ذهبت «إسرائيل» نحو تصعيد فلسفة الجدار، رغم كل الصراخ عن القدرة على خوض الحروب، فشكل الإعلان عن دولة يهودية تعبيراً عن فلسفة الجدار، ومثله نقل السفارة الأميركية إلى القدس، إعلاناً عن العجز على السير في أي مشروع تفاوضي نحو تسوية سياسية يعادل العجز عن خوض الحروب، ولو رآه البعض علامة قوة فهو ليس إلا دليل ضعف.

– رغم الانقسام الفصائلي الحاد يبدو الفلسطينيون أقرب سياسياً لبعضهم في الإجماع على رفض التفاوض والدور الأميركي ومشروع صفقة القرن، بصورة لم يسبق أن شكل الموقف من التفاوض ومن نسخ التسوية المعروضة ومن العلاقة مع واشنطن، أسباباً دائمة للانقسام السياسي والشعبي، رغم وجود تفاهمات بين حركتي فتح وحماس وتشاركهما حينها في الانتخابات وتشكيل الحكومة، بينما يبدو الإسرائيليون رغم ظاهر تفرقهم في مستويات الخطاب التصعيدي انتخابياً، مدركين حجم المأزق الوجودي الذي يعيشه كيانهم، والمتمثل بفقدان قدرة الذهاب للحرب أو قدرة الذهاب للتسوية، فالجبهات كلها مقفلة ومخاطر العبث معها مكلفة، والتسويات لا تقل كلفة، وليس في الكيان من يجرؤ على المخاطرة في الاتجاهين.

– ثمة تحولات كبرى جرت في المنطقة، فقدت خلالها «إسرائيل» الإمساك بزمام المبادرة، ومقابلها حدثت تحولات معاكسة امتلك خلالها الفلسطينيون ومن ورائهم قوى وحكومات محور المقاومة، المزيد من عناصر القدرة على المبادرة، حيث الاشتباك المفتوح مع جيش الاحتلال وقطعان المستوطنين، وطريق التفاوض مقفل كخيار يقسم الفلسطينيين، والقدرة العربية والغربية على إنعاش مسار التفاوض تتراجع، وخيار المقاومة يصير طريقاً حتمياً وحيداً، وقد أثبت قدرته على تحقيق الإنجازات، ويكفي النظر في كيفية التهرّب الإسرائيلي من التورط في الرد على صواريخ غزة على تل أبيب لمعرفة تبدل الأحوال الذي نعيش في ظله، بعدما كانت «إسرائيل» تصنع أحداثاً لتتخذها ذرائع لشن الحروب يوم كانت قادرة عليها، صارت تهوّن من خطورة التحديات لتبرير الهروب من المواجهات والحروب، لأنها فقدت هذه القدرة.

Related Videos

Related Articles

It Started in Daraa on March 17, 2011: The US-NATO-Israel Sponsored Al Qaeda Insurgency in Syria. Who Was Behind the 2011 “Protest Movement”?

It Started in Daraa on March 17, 2011: The US-NATO-Israel Sponsored Al Qaeda Insurgency in Syria. Who Was Behind the 2011 “Protest Movement”?By Prof Michel Chossudovsky,

Author’s note

The war on Syria started eight years ago in Daraa  on the 17th of March 2011.

The following article first published in May 2011 examines the inception of the jihadist terrorist insurgency.

It recounts the events of March 17-18, 2011 in Daraa, a small border town with Jordan. 

Media reports have finally acknowledged that the so-called “protest movement” in Syria was instigated by Washington. This was known and documented from the very inception of the Syrian crisis in March 2011.

It was not a protest movement, it was an armed insurgency integrated by US-Israeli and allied supported “jihadist” death squads? 

From Day One, the Islamist “freedom fighters” were supported, trained and equipped by NATO and Turkey’s High Command. According to Israeli intelligence sources (Debka, August14, 2011): 

NATO headquarters in Brussels and the Turkish high command are meanwhile drawing up plans for their first military step in Syria, which is to arm the rebels with weapons for combating the tanks and helicopters spearheading the Assad regime’s crackdown on dissent. … NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces. (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011) 

This initiative, which was also supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, involved a process of organized recruitment of thousands of jihadist “freedom fighters”, reminiscent of  the enlistment of  Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war: 

Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. (Ibid, emphasis added)

These mercenaries were subsequently integrated into US and allied sponsored terrorist organizations including Al Nusrah and ISIS. 

The Daraa “protest movement” on March 17-18 had all the appearances of a staged event involving covert support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad and/or Western intelligence.

Government sources pointed to the role of radical Salafist groups (supported by Israel).

In chorus, the Western media described the events in Daraa as a protest movement against Bashar Al Assad.

In a bitter irony, the deaths of policemen were higher than those of “demonstrators”.

In Daraa, roof top snipers were targeting both police and demonstrators.

Reading between the lines of Israeli and Lebanese news reports (which acknowledge the police deaths) a clearer picture of what happened in Daraa on March 17-18 had emerged. The Israel National News Report (which can not be accused of being biased in favor of Bashar al Assad) confirmed that:

“Seven police officers and at least four demonstrators in Syria have been killed in continuing violent clashes that erupted in the southern town of Daraa last Thursday. … and the Baath Party Headquarters and courthouse were torched, in renewed violence on Sunday. (Gavriel Queenann, Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests, Israel National News, Arutz Sheva, March 21, 2011, emphasis added)

The Lebanese news report also acknowledged the killings of seven policemen in Daraa.

[They were killed] “during clashes between the security forces and protesters… They got killed trying to drive away protesters during demonstration in Dara’a”

The Lebanese Ya Libnan report quoting Al Jazeera also acknowledged that protesters had “burned the headquarters of the Baath Party and the court house in Dara’a” (emphasis added)

These news reports of the events in Daraa confirmed that from the very outset this was not a “peaceful protest” as claimed by the Western media.

Moreover, from an assessment of the initial casualty figures (Israel News), there were more policemen than “demonstrators” who were killed.

This is significant because it suggests that the police force may have initially been outnumbered by a well organized armed gang of professional killers.

What was clear from these initial reports is that many of the demonstrators were not demonstrators but terrorists involved in premeditated acts of killing and arson.

The title of the Israeli news report summarized what happened: Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protest

The US-NATO-Israel agenda consisted in supporting an Al Qaeda affiliated insurgency integrated by death squads and professional snipers. President Bashar al Assad is then to be blamed for killing his own people. 

Does it Sound familiar? 

The same “false flag” strategy of killing innocent civilians was used during the Ukraine Maidan protest movement.  On February 20th, 2014, professional snipers were shooting at both demonstrators and policemen with a view to accusing president Viktor Yanukovych of “mass murder.”

It was subsequently revealed that these snipers were controlled by the opponents of president Yanukovych, who are now part of the coalition government. 

The “humanitarian mandate” of the US and its allies is sustained by diabolical “false flag” attacks which consist in killing civilians with a view to breaking the legitimacy of governments which refuse to abide by the diktats of Washington and its allies.

Michel Chossudovsky, March 17, 2019


SYRIA: Who is Behind The Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO “Humanitarian Intervention”

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, May 3, 2011

There is evidence of gross media manipulation and falsification from the outset of the protest movement in southern Syria on March 17th [2011].

The Western media has presented the events in Syria as part of the broader Arab pro-democracy protest movement, spreading spontaneously from Tunisia, to Egypt, and from Libya to Syria.

Media coverage has focussed on the Syrian police and armed forces, which are accused of indiscriminately shooting and killing unarmed “pro-democracy” demonstrators. While these police shootings did indeed occur, what the media failed to mention is that among the demonstrators there were armed gunmen as well as snipers who were shooting at both the security forces and the protesters.

The death figures presented in the reports are often unsubstantiated. Many of the reports are “according to witnesses”. The images and video footages aired on Al Jazeera and CNN do not always correspond to the events which are being covered by the news reports.

Alawite Map

There is certainly cause for social unrest and mass protest in Syria: unemployment has increased in recent year, social conditions have deteriorated, particularly since the adoption in 2006 of sweeping economic reforms under IMF guidance. The IMF’s “economic medicine” includes austerity measures, a freeze on wages, the deregulation of the financial system, trade reform and privatization.

(See IMF  Syrian Arab Republic — IMF Article IV Consultation Mission’s Concluding Statement, http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2006/051406.htm, 2006)

While Syria is [2011] no “model society” with regard to civil rights and freedom of expression, it nonetheless constitutes the only (remaining) independent secular state in the Arab world. Its populist, anti-Imperialist and secular base is inherited from the dominant Baath party, which integrates Muslims, Christians and Druze.

Moreover, in contrast to Egypt and Tunisia, in Syria there is considerable popular support for President Bashar Al Assad. The large rally in Damascus on March 29, “with tens of thousands of supporters” (Reuters) of President Al Assad is barely mentioned. Yet in an unusual twist, the images and video footage of several pro-government events were used by the Western media to convince international public opinion that the President was being confronted by mass anti-government rallies.

Tens of thousands of Syrians gather for a pro-government rally at the central
bank square in Damascus March 29, 2011. (Reuters Photo)

Syrians display a giant national flag with a picture of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad during a
pro-government rally at the central bank square in Damascus March 29, 2011. (Reuters Photo)

The “Epicenter” of the Protest Movement. Daraa: A Small Border Town in southern Syria

What is the nature of the protest movement? From what sectors of Syrian society does it emanate? What triggered the violence?

What is the cause of the deaths?

The existence of an organized insurrection composed of armed gangs involved in acts of killing and arson has been dismissed by the Western media, despite evidence to the contrary.

The demonstrations  did not start in Damascus, the nation’s capital. At the outset, the protests were not integrated by a mass movement of citizens in Syria’s capital.

The demonstrations started in Daraa, a small border town of 75,000 inhabitants, on the Syrian Jordanian border, rather than in Damascus or Aleppo, where the mainstay of organized political opposition and social movements are located. (Daraa is a small border town comparable e.g. to Plattsburgh, NY on the US-Canadian border).

The Associated Press report (quoting unnamed “witnesses” and “activists”) describes the early protests in Daraa as follows:

The violence in Daraa, a city of about 300,000 near the border with Jordan, was fast becoming a major challenge for President Bashar Assad, …. Syrian police launched a relentless assault Wednesday on a neighborhood sheltering anti-government protesters [Daraa], fatally shooting at least 15 in an operation that began before dawn, witnesses said.

At least six were killed in the early morning attack on the al-Omari mosque in the southern agricultural city of Daraa, where protesters have taken to the streets in calls for reforms and political freedoms, witnesses said. An activist in contact with people in Daraa said police shot another three people protesting in its Roman-era city center after dusk. Six more bodies were found later in the day, the activist said.

As the casualties mounted, people from the nearby villages of Inkhil, Jasim, Khirbet Ghazaleh and al-Harrah tried to march on Daraa Wednesday night but security forces opened fire as they approached, the activist said. It was not immediately clear if there were more deaths or injuries. (AP, March 23, 2011, emphasis added)

The AP report inflates the numbers: Daraa is presented as a city of 300,000 when in fact its population is 75,000;  “protesters gathered by the thousands”, “casualties mounted”.

The report is silent on the death of policemen which in the West invariably makes the front page of the tabloids.

The deaths of the policemen are important in assessing what actually happened. When there are police casualties, this means that there is an exchange of gunfire between opposing sides, between policemen and “demonstrators”.

Who are these “demonstrators” including roof top snipers who were targeting the police.

Israeli and Lebanese news reports (which acknowledge the police deaths) provide a clearer picture of what happened in Daraa on March 17-18. The Israel National News Report (which cannot be accused of being biased in favor of Damascus) reviews these same events as follows:

Seven police officers and at least four demonstrators in Syria have been killed in continuing violent clashes that erupted in the southern town of Daraa last Thursday.

…. On Friday police opened fire on armed protesters killing four and injuring as many as 100 others. According to one witness, who spoke to the press on condition of anonymity, “They used live ammunition immediately — no tear gas or anything else.”

…. In an uncharacteristic gesture intended to ease tensions the government offered to release the detained students, but seven police officers were killed, and the Baath Party Headquarters and courthouse were torched, in renewed violence on Sunday. (Gavriel Queenann, Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests, Israel National News, Arutz Sheva, March 21, 2011, emphasis added)

The Lebanese news report, quoting various sources, also acknowledges the killings of seven policemen in Daraa: They were killed  “during clashes between the security forces and protesters… They got killed trying to drive away protesters during demonstration in Dara’a” 

The Lebanese Ya Libnan report quoting Al Jazeera also acknowledged that protesters had “burned the headquarters of the Baath Party and the court house in Dara’a”  (emphasis added)

These news reports of the events in Daraa confirm the following:

1. This was not a “peaceful protest” as claimed by the Western media. Several of the “demonstrators” had fire arms and were using them against the police:  “The police opened fire on armed protesters killing four”.

2. From the initial casualty figures (Israel News), there were more policemen than demonstrators who were killed:  7 policemen killed versus 4 demonstrators. This is significant because it suggests that the police force might have been initially outnumbered by a well organized armed gang. According to Syrian media sources, there were also snipers on rooftops which were shooting at both the police and the protesters.

What is clear from these initial reports is that many of the demonstrators were not demonstrators but terrorists involved in premeditated acts of killing and arson. The title of the Israeli news report summarizes what happened:  Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests.  The title suggests that the “demonstrators” rather than the police had the upper hand.

The Daraa “protest movement” on March 18 had all the appearances of a staged event involving, in all likelihood, covert support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad and/or Western intelligence. Government sources point to the role of radical Salafist groups (supported by Israel)

Other reports have pointed to the role of Saudi Arabia in financing the protest movement.

What has unfolded in Daraa in the weeks following the initial violent clashes on 17-18 March, is the confrontation between the police and the armed forces on the one hand and armed units of terrorists and snipers on the other which had infiltrated the protest movement.

Reports suggest that these terrorists are integrated by Islamists. There is no concrete evidence as to which Islamic organizations are behind the terrorists and the government has not released corroborating information as to who these groups are.

Both the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (whose leadership is in exile in the UK) and the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation), among others have paid lip service to the protest movement. Hizb ut Tahir (led in the 1980s by Syrian born Omar Bakri Muhammad) tends to “dominate the British Islamist scene” according to Foreign Affairs. Hizb ut Tahir is also considered to be of strategic importance to Britain’s Secret Service MI6. in the pursuit of Anglo-American interests in the Middle East and Central Asia. (Is Hizb-ut-Tahrir another project of British MI6? | State of Pakistan).

 

Syria is a secular Arab country, a society of religious tolerance, where Muslims and Christians have for several centuries lived in peace. Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation) is a radical political movement committed to the creation of an Islamic caliphate. In Syria, its avowed objective is to destabilize the secular state.

Since the Soviet-Afghan war, Western intelligence agencies as well as Israel’s Mossad have consistently used various Islamic terrorist organizations as “intelligence assets”. Both Washington and its indefectible British ally have provided covert support to “Islamic terrorists” in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya, etc. as a means to triggering ethnic strife, sectarian violence and political instability.

The staged protest movement in Syria is modelled on Libya. The insurrection in Eastern Libya is integrated by the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which is supported by MI6 and the CIA. The ultimate objective of the Syria protest movement, through media lies and fabrications, is to create divisions within Syrian society as well as justify an eventual “humanitarian intervention”.

Armed Insurrection in Syria

An armed insurrection integrated by Islamists and supported covertly by Western intelligence is central to an understanding of what is occurring on the ground.

The existence of an armed insurrection is not mentioned by the Western media. If it were to be acknowledged and analysed, our understanding of unfolding events would be entirely different.

What is mentioned profusely is that the armed forces and the police are involved in the indiscriminate killing of protesters.

The deployment of the armed forces including tanks in Daraa is directed against an organized armed insurrection, which has been active in the border city since March 17-18.

Casualties are being reported which also include the death of policemen and soldiers.

In a bitter irony, the Western media acknowledges the police/soldier deaths while denying the existence of an armed insurrection.

The key question is how does the media explain these deaths of soldiers and police?

Without evidence, the reports suggest authoritatively that the police is shooting at the soldiers and vice versa the soldiers are shooting on the police. In a April 29 Al Jazeera report, Daraa is described as “a city under siege”.

“Tanks and troops control all roads in and out. Inside the city, shops are shuttered and nobody dare walk the once bustling market streets, today transformed into the kill zone of rooftop snipers.

Unable to crush the people who first dared rise up against him – neither with the secret police,  paid thugs or the special forces of his brother’s military division – President Bashar al-Assad has sent thousands of Syrian soldiers and their heavy weaponry into Deraa for an operation the regime wants nobody in the world to see.

Though almost all communication channels with Deraa have been cut, including the Jordanian mobile service that reaches into the city from just across the border, Al Jazeera has gathered firsthand accounts of life inside the city from residents who just left or from eyewitnesses inside who were able to get outside the blackout area.

The picture that emerges is of a dark and deadly security arena, one driven by the actions of the secret police and their rooftop snipers, in which soldiers and protestors alike are being killed or wounded, in which cracks are emerging in the military itself, and in which is created the very chaos which the regime uses to justify its escalating crackdown. (Daraa, a City under Siege, IPS / Al Jazeera, April 29, 2011)

The Al Jazeera report borders on the absurd. Read carefully.

“Tanks and troops control all roads in and out”,  “thousands of Syrian soldiers and their heavy weaponry into Daraa”

This situation has prevailed for several weeks. This means that bona fide protesters who are not already inside Daraa cannot enter Daraa.

People who live in the city are in their homes: “nobody dares walk … the streets”. If nobody dares walk the streets where are the protesters?

Who is in the streets? According to Al Jazeera, the protesters are in the streets together with the soldiers, and both the protesters and the soldiers are being shot at by “plain clothes secret police”, by “paid thugs” and government sponsored snipers.

The impression conveyed in the report is that these casualties are attributed to infighting between the police and the military.

But the report also says that the soldiers (in the “thousands”) control all roads in and out of the city, but they are being shot upon by the plain clothed secret police.

The purpose of this web of media deceit, namely outright fabrications  –where soldiers are being killed by police and  “government snipers”– is to deny the existence of armed terrorist groups. The later are integrated by snipers and “plain clothed terrorists” who are shooting at the police, the Syrian armed forces and local residents.

These are not spontaneous acts of terror; they are carefully planned and coordinated attacks. In recent developments, according to a Xinhua report (April 30, 2011), armed “terrorist groups” “attacked the housing areas for servicemen” in Daraa province, “killing a sergeant and wounding two”.

While the government bears heavy responsibility for its mishandling of the military-police operation, including the deaths of civilians, the reports confirm that the armed terrorist groups had also opened fire on protesters and local residents. The casualties are then blamed on the armed forces and the police and the Bashar Al Assad government is portrayed by “the international community” as having ordered countless atrocities.

The fact of the matter is that foreign journalists are banned from reporting inside Syria, to the extent that much of the information including the number of casualties is obtained from the unverified accounts of “witnesses”.

It is in the interest of the US-NATO alliance to portray the events in Syria as a peaceful protest movement which is being brutally repressed by a “dictatorial regime”.

The Syrian government may be autocratic. It is certainly not a model of democracy but neither is the US administration, which is characterized by rampant corruption, the derogation of civil liberties under the Patriot legislation, the legalisation of torture, not to mention its “bloodless” “humanitarian wars”:

“The U.S. and its NATO allies have, in addition to U.S. Sixth Fleet and NATO Active Endeavor military assets permanently deployed in the Mediterranean, warplanes, warships and submarines engaged in the assault against Libya that can be used against Syria at a moment’s notice.

On April 27 Russia and China evidently prevented the U.S. and its NATO allies from pushing through an equivalent of Resolution 1973 against Syria in the Security Council, with Russian deputy ambassador to the UN Alexander Pankin stating that the current situation in Syria “does not present a threat to international peace and security.” Syria is Russia’s last true partner in the Mediterranean and the Arab world and hosts one of only two Russian overseas naval bases, that at Tartus. (The other being in Ukraine’s Crimea.)” (Rick Rozoff,   Libyan Scenario For Syria: Towards A US-NATO “Humanitarian Intervention” directed against Syria? Global Research, April 30, 2011)

The ultimate purpose is to trigger sectarian violence and political chaos within Syria by covertly supporting Islamic terrorist organizations.

What lies ahead?

The longer term US foreign policy perspective is “regime change” and the destabilization of Syria as an independent nation-state, through a covert process of “democratization” or through military means.

Syria is on the list of “rogue states”, which are targeted for a US military intervention. As confirmed by former NATO commander General Wesley Clark the “[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark).

The objective is to weaken the structures of the secular State while justifying an eventual  UN sponsored “humanitarian intervention”. The latter, in the first instance, could take the form of a reinforced embargo on the country (including sanctions) as well as the freezing of Syrian bank assets in overseas foreign financial institutions.

While a US-NATO military intervention in the immediate future seems highly unlikely, Syria is nonetheless on the Pentagon’s military roadmap, namely an eventual war on Syria has been contemplated both by Washington and Tel Aviv.

If it were to occur, at some future date, it would lead to escalation. Israel would inevitably be involved. The entire Middle East Central Asian region from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Chinese-Afghan border would flare up.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Editor of globalresearch.ca. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.  He spent a month in Syria in early 2011.

%d bloggers like this: