A few voices of sanity as the drumbeats for a US and/or Israeli military strike on Iran reach a fever pitch. First, here’s Gary Sick’s smart blog post addressing Ronen Bergman’s egregiously alarmist cover story in the New York Times Magazine last Sunday:

Bergman’s dramatic statement that “I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012,” is also nothing new — it simply changes the date. We heard the same thing a year ago from Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, and two years before that from uber-hawk John Bolton, who confidently predicted that the U.S. and/or Israel would strike Iran before George W. Bush left office.  It is becoming almost an annual ritual.

Why do these false alarms keep going off? Bergman suggests an answer with disarming honesty: “Some have argued that Israel has intentionally exaggerated its assessments to create an atmosphere of fear that would drag Europe into its extensive economic campaign against Iran…” To this, the ubiquitous “senior American official” adds that “It is unclear if the Israelis firmly believe this or are using worst-case estimates to raise greater urgency from the United States.” In other words, Israel benefits by keeping the pot near the boiling point so that no one can ignore the Iran issue, even for a moment.

Tom Englehardt’s op-ed in Al Jazeera English:

The only issue seriously discussed in this country is: How exactly can we do it, or can we do it at all (without causing ourselves irreparably greater harm)? Effectiveness, not legality or morality, is the only measurement. Few in our own little world (and who else matters?) question our right to do so, though obviously the right of any other state to do something similar to us or one of our allies, or to retaliate or even to threaten to retaliate, should we do so, is considered shocking and beyond all norms, beyond every red line when it comes to how nations (except us) should behave.

This mindset, and the acts that have gone with it, have blown what is, at worst, a modest-sized global problem up into an existential threat, a life-and-death matter. Iran as a global monster now nearly fills what screen-space there is for foreign enemies in the present US moment. Yet, despite its enormous energy reserves, it is a shaky regional power, ruled by a faction-ridden set of fundamentalists (but not madmen), the most hardline of whom seem at the moment ascendant (in no small part due to US and Israeli policies). The country has a relatively modest military budget, and no recent history of invading other states. It has been under intense pressure of every sort for years now and the strains are showing. The kind of pressure the US and its allies have been exerting creates the basis for madness – or for terrible miscalculation followed by inevitable tragedy.

And this one is a few weeks old already, but it’s still haunting my dreams: Mark Perry’ deeply disturbing expose for Foreign Policy that describes how Israel recruited members of a terrorist organization to fight their covert war against Iran. If you have any doubt about how reckless Israel has become in its determination to bring down the regime in Iran, please take the time to read this one.

The kicker:

While many of the details of Israel’s involvement with Jundallah are now known, many others still remain a mystery — and are likely to remain so. The CIA memos of the incident have been “blue bordered,” meaning that they were circulated to senior levels of the broader U.S. intelligence community as well as senior State Department officials.

What has become crystal clear, however, is the level of anger among senior intelligence officials about Israel’s actions. “This was stupid and dangerous,” the intelligence official who first told me about the operation said. “Israel is supposed to be working with us, not against us. If they want to shed blood, it would help a lot if it was their blood and not ours. You know, they’re supposed to be a strategic asset. Well, guess what? There are a lot of people now, important people, who just don’t think that’s true.”

Inside Syria: Escalating violence pushes country toward full-blown war (2:13)
Produced by Brett Gering, Reuters TV
Joshua Landis on Reuters TV

Landis Talks About Syria’s Assad Regime
Listen to the Story on All Things Considered, [4 min 44 sec]-
Audie Cornish talks with Joshua Landis, January 30, 2012

U.N. Security Council Meets: Syria’s Assad May Be Under Pressure, but He’s Not on His Way Out Yet
By Tony Karon | January 31, 2012 | Time

The Front Row, The New Yorker, Online Only
January 31, 2012, Images from Syria
Posted by Richard Brody

Ossama Mohammed

There’s an open letter by Syrian artists published today in Le Monde—the filmmakers Hala Alabdalla and Ossama Mohammed, the actress Reem Ali, and the cartoonist Ali Ferzat are among its first fifty signatories—titled “Deliver Syria So That It Regains the Right to Live and to Create!”….

Foreign Policy

Security Council debate on Syria sputters

---

Top news: Arab and Western states spent Tuesday calling on the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution urging Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down and delegate power to his deputy over his crackdown on an 11-month-old uprising, which has grown increasingly violent. But Russia and China, both veto-wielding Security Council members, remain unconvinced.

Vladimir Chizhov, Moscow’s envoy to the European Union, explained on Wednesday that Russia would veto the draft resolution unless it explicitly ruled out military intervention in Syria, while Li Baodong, the Chinese ambassador to the United Nations, told the Security Council that China opposed the “use of force” and “pushing for forced regime change” in Syria. “Behind all the arguments lurked the ghost of Libya,” the New York Times observes.

SNC News

Bahiya Mardini catalogs the growing differences that are dividing members of the Syrian National Council, the main opposition organization that Washington is cultivating. They are fighting over finances, which are not transparent. They are also fighting over the proper relationship with Syria’s growing militias, which seek to coordinate under the umbrella organization of the Free Syrian Army.

الخلافات تتفاقم بين أعضاء المجلس الوطني السوري

بهية مارديني,  2012 الإثنين 30 يناير

اندلعت الإتهامات بين أعضاء “المجلس الوطني” حول الأمور المالية والتنظيمية وغياب الدعم عن “الجيش السوري الحر” بالإضافة لشكوك بوجود “أزلام” بشار الأسد بينهم.

Rebels Without a Clue: Why can’t the Syrian opposition get its act together?
BY JUSTIN VELA | JANUARY 31, 2012 – Foreign Policy

Muqdad’s frustration with the Syrian National Council (SNC), the body intended to serve as the political representation of the Syrian opposition, has grown. He has diligently traveled around Turkey, arranging coverage of the Syrian uprising by major media outlets, holding meetings in Western embassies, and coordinating with activists inside the country. In the meantime, he has come to see the SNC as disorganized, disconnected from the Syrians on the ground, and out of step with the broad spectrum of Syrian society.

“We know it is impossible to be 100 percent representative of the nation or the opposition,” Muqdad told me. “[But the SNC] does not know the principles of running the opposition.” …

It’s not only Muqdad whose initial optimism regarding Syria’s organized opposition has faded. A wide range of activists and diplomats are voicing concerns with the SNC, criticizing its lack of cohesion and effectiveness. While the majority of them have not given up on the council, they paint a picture of an organization out of touch with the protesters on the ground and dominated by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

“No one from the SNC has influence inside Syria. Most members of the SNC are jumping on a train that started from the street,” says Ammar Qurabi, a Syrian human rights activist, arguing that SNC leaders are trying to use the momentum of the demonstrations to take political power. Qurabi refuses to work with the SNC and plans to launch his own opposition group in early February

The SNC is composed of a nine-person executive committee, sitting on top of an approximately 250-person body. The organization’s leadership is primarily made up of Sunni Arabs, and though it has made an effort to include members of other sects and ethnicities, few are present on the council.

Qurabi notes that the SNC has been particularly negligent in incorporating members of Assad’s Alawite sect. “No Alawite on the executive council — that is a scandal,” he says. “Especially when we fight Assad, who says, ‘I am Alawite. I protect Alawites’?” ….

“The Free Syrian Army could leave them in the dust unless the SNC can do something for the FSA,” the diplomat worries. …

One particularly damaging stumble occurred when SNC Chairman Burhan Ghalioun signed a draft agreement with the National Coordination Committee,..

The most divisive issue surrounding the SNC, however, clearly remains the prominent role played by the Muslim Brotherhood. “The Muslim Brotherhood is the only party in town,” says the Ankara-based Western diplomat. …

Muqdad’s initial optimism about the SNC faded, he says, when he realized the extent of the Brotherhood’s dominance. While he has been in close touch with Western diplomats, he thinks that non-SNC members have been blocked from speaking publicly and that the SNC takes credit for activities that it was not involved in.

“We have no problem with [the Brotherhood] as a political party,” explains Muqdad, a Sunni Muslim who joined the opposition in 1999 and claims to have spent years living underground. “[But] they are using the wrong ways to lead.” …

The Brotherhood’s prominence has also opened old wounds with former members of the Syrian military, who had counted the Islamist movement as its primary domestic foe before the current revolt. A defected Syrian soldier in the Free Officers Movement, which is aligned with the Free Syrian Army but does not take orders from it, describes the Brotherhood as “malignant.”

“[The Free Officers Movement] has a limited relation with the SNC because they are controlled by the Muslim Brothers,” he told me.

The officer, a Sunni, said that the Brotherhood’s presence was particularly problematic in Syria due to the large number of minorities in the country. It would be difficult to convince minorities, especially the Alawites, that their rights would be guaranteed with the Muslim Brotherhood steering the political opposition, he says.

Mohammed Farouk Tayfour, the deputy secretary-general of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood, insists that his movement will cooperate fairly with other opposition groups. …

“All Syrians have the mentality that they want to be president,” Muqdad says. “Except me. I want to be on Miami Beach.”

U.S. spy chief says Syria’s Assad cannot hold power MSNBC

Thomas Pierret writes that Free Syrian Army members took a tank from loyalist forces and used it against them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g32jed0lN3M

Sectarian attack kills 14 of same family in Syria
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis
AMMAN | Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:49pm EST

(Reuters) – Militiamen loyal to President Bashar al-Assad killed 14 members of a Sunni family in the city of Homs on Thursday in one of the grizzliest sectarian attacks in the ten-month uprising raging in the Alawite-dominated country, activists and residents said….
“Alawites who had remained in Karm al-Zeitoun mysteriously left four days ago, and the rumor was that they did so on orders by the authorities. Today we know why,” said a doctor in the district who did not want to be named.

“We also have seventy people wounded. Field hospitals themselves are coming under mortar fire,” he said. Hamza, an activist in Homs said that the attack was “pure revenge” for shabbiha members being killed by army defectors loosely grouped under the Free Syrian Army.

He said Sunni families were fleeing Karm al-Zeitoun to other parts of the city, and several Sunni neighborhoods, such as Bab Sbaa, also came under fire. Tit-for-tat sectarian killings began in Homs four months ago, following armored military assaults on Sunni areas of the city by forces led by members of Assad’s minority Alawite sect.

Mass killings have included Alawites in micro-buses on the way to their villages near Homs and Sunnis stopped at a roadblock while heading to work at a factory. Women from the two sects have been abducted and killed also, activists said.

The killings have raised the prospect of the pro-democracy protest movement against Assad turning into a civil war, as his opponents take up arms and fight back against loyalist forces cracking down on demonstrators.

New Jihad Group in Syria Announces Its Establishment – MEMRI

A new jihad group, Jabhat Al-Nusra Li-Ahl Al-Sham, (“The Front for the Protection of the Syrian People”) whose goal is to topple the Syrian regime, has released a video announcing its establishment. The 16-minute video, which was produced by the group’s media company Al-Manara Al-Baida (“White Lighthouse”), was posted January 24, 2012 on the jihadi forum Shumoukh Al-Islam after a two-day promotion campaign that included large banners and a countdown to the release….

In tumultuous Syrian city, kidnapping trade booms
January 27, 2012, Daily Times, Pakistan

In Homs, members of the same minority sect to which Assad himself belongs kidnap Sunni Muslims. Those who are part of the Sunni majority, backbone of protests against 42 years of autocratic Assad family rule, go after Alawites.

So far, sectarian violence and killing are rarely the goals of the abductions. But the kidnapping trend in the city of one million people, Syria’s third largest, has taken on a logic of its own.

Some seize people for money in Homs, where the bloody turmoil paralysing the city has left thousands jobless. Others kidnap to trade hostages. And some simply feel that having captives on hand could serve as leverage later. Residents say police write reports but never take action. “There is no one to complain to. There’s no law. You either sit and wait for God’s mercy, or you kidnap too. Homs is now in the hands of hooligans. Rationality is gone,” said Jamal, 30, an Alawite driver held for five days.

Stories like his are hard to verify, as government restrictions and the ongoing violence curb media access. But human rights groups and the government itself have chronicled dozens of kidnapping cases. All of those interviewed spoke by Skype, to avoid the telephone monitoring of security services. In Homs, near-empty streets are patrolled by jittery soldiers hiding behind stacked sandbags. Residents shut themselves inside by dusk to avoid kidnappers waiting under the cover of darkness.

Even going out in the daytime is risky now. Jamal was kidnapped at noon. “I was driving out of the market. Four men with Kalashnikovs waved me down. I sped away because I knew what would happen.” But a hidden car raced out of an alley and cut him off. “They dragged me out of my car and beat me. They took my two mobile phones, 2,500 liras ($40) in my pocket and my shoes.” Jamal was then taken to a house where he was crammed into a room with 10 other Alawites, held hostage for days on end. “It was the house of a guy people call ‘The Frowner’. He’s a creep. He runs the kidnapping scheme in that neighbourhood. It was such a farce, I stopped worrying I would die,” he said.

The kidnappers let Jamal call his family and tell them they needed to pay 150,000 lira (around $2,500) for his release and another 300,000 to get back his car. “My family is poor. They don’t have much money, so they talked to some of the Alawite thugs in our neighbourhood hoping to get some Sunnis released in exchange for me,” Jamal said.

In Syria, many caught ‘in the middle’
By Nic Robertson, CNN January 24, 2012

In places like Homs, the cradle of the uprising, the writing is on the wall for the rest of the country. Some neighborhoods have thrown out the government completely, such as in the Baba Amr district, where the Free Syrian Army has control. Communities have divided on sectarian lines. Many Christians have fled to Damascus. Garbage is piled high in the streets, electricity is cut, civilian causalities mount, and on the other side of the impromptu front-line barricades, the death toll of government soldiers creeps up as well.

A drive around Homs reveals a medieval-style siege, multiple checkpoints to move between neighborhoods, even a deep new ditch in places rings the city. But the uprising continues.

The opposition in Homs is better organized. A new council has been formed, it has a budget — money, some say, is coming from the Gulf — and runs medical and humanitarian supplies.

But the council is not the only show in town. Salafists are moving in too, Islamic radicals, many with terror tactics honed in neighboring Iraq. Reports abound of infighting both inside and outside Syria, the hard-liners already jockeying for post-al-Assad power.

If war escalates, as it surely seems it will, expect a long and bloody campaign. As the man in the middle I met on my way back to London told me: “We are afraid of the men with guns, afraid the radicals will impose their backwards views on us.”

We Intervene in Syria at Our Peril, By Ed Husain, Feb 1 2012

Western military involvement would worsen violence, not end it, and could spread the conflict beyond Syria’s borders.

Supporters of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad attend a rally in Damascus / Reuters

I was living in Syria the last time that the world was talking about President Bashar al-Assad’s imminent demise. With neighboring Iraq’s Saddam Hussein (a Ba’ath party leader, like Assad) overthrown, many of my students at the University of Damascus anticipated that soon we could remove the portraits of Assad from our classrooms. For encouraging dissent, I was monitored by the dreaded secret service, the mukhabarat. During my two-year stay in Syria, I was detained at airports and threatened with deportation if I did not stop calling for democracy. I was branded a CIA agent by regime-loyalist students who objected to my patronage of a student debate society in Damascus — an early attempt to encourage young people to think freely.

I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, but I also learned from the many mistakes that followed. Much like Iraq under Saddam, the ruling Ba’ath party in Syria controls almost every aspect of public life: business, military, media, police, education, and even religious institutions. Regime change in Syria would be bloody and protracted. I still maintain frequent contact with friends in Syria, and visited the country regularly until late 2010. When friends in Washington, DC, such as the normally measured Steven Cook present the U.S. with a false choice of intervening militarily or seeing Assad stay in office longer, as he did in a recent article on this site, I worry.

From Informed Comment

On Tuesday, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, slammed al-Maliki for his anti-Sunni policies, warning in essence that if the Shiite-dominated army represses Iraq’s Sunnis, Turkey (a Sunni-majority country) would feel constrained to intervene. Turkey has already made military incursions into Iraq in hot pursuit of Kudistan Workers’ Party (PKK) guerrillas who have attacked military and civilian targets in eastern Turkey.

Turkey’s embassy in Baghdad was targeted by (inaccurate) rocket fire twice last week.

Turkey’s Erdogan and Iraq’s al-Maliki are also at odds over Syria, with Erdogan calling for Bashar al-Assad to step down and al-Maliki more or less supporting the al-Assad government. (Al-Maliki is said to fear that the secular Baath Party might be overthrown by Sunni radicals who will give aid to Sunni insurgents in Iraq).

President Obama’s State of the Union Address

Obama devoted one-and-a-half paragraphs to the uprisings in the Middle East but didn’t explicitly mention America’s role in the military intervention in Libya that toppled Muammar al-Qaddafi — the centerpiece of what some have described as the Obama administration’s doctrine of “leading from behind.”

The takeaway line may have been Obama’s singling out of Syria: “In Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change can’t be reversed, and that human dignity can’t be denied”

But Obama did not say whether his administration would take any more concrete steps to help Syrian President Bashar al-Assad see the light.

Around60 people have been killed in the restive city of Homs in the past two days ina brutal siege by Syrian security forces and shabbiha, militiamen, according to activists and residents. Residents claim the killings were along sectarian divides, referring to the situation as “racial cleansing.”Reports could not be confirmed, but video showed the bodies of women and children. Meanwhile the Free Syria Army has released a video of seven captured men alleged to be Iranian — five of whom are purported to be members of the Revolutionary Guards — heightening suspicions over Iranian and Hezbollah military support for Syrian regime forces. Also, the United Nations Security Council will hold a meeting today “behind closed doors” on are solution drafted by Morocco on Syria. The resolution would reflect the Arab League proposal calling for President Bashar al-Assad to yield power to his deputy and develop a transitional unity government that would hold elections within two months. Russia and China vetoed a draft resolution in October that would have condemned the regime violence in Syria.Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said this draft is also “unacceptable“maintaining that the document must rule out the use of force. Russia is believed to likely take issue with another point concerning the prevention of arms transfers. Representatives from the Arab League will meet with the Security Council on Saturday to gain support for its proposals on Syria as the group’s observer mission as been subject to great criticism.

Headlines

• A suicide car bomber killed at least 31 people and injured 60 in Iraq at a funeral procession in a Shiite neighborhood in sectarian violence that has seen casualties double those of last January.

The Eclipse of Bashar al-Assad, January 27, 2012,by Hilal Khashan

President Obama’s State of the Union Address

Obama devoted one-and-a-half paragraphs to the uprisings in the Middle East but didn’t explicitly mention America’s role in the military intervention in Libya that toppled Muammar al-Qaddafi — the centerpiece of what some have described as the Obama administration’s doctrine of “leading from behind.”

The takeaway line may have been Obama’s singling out of Syria: “In Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change can’t be reversed, and that human dignity can’t be denied”

But Obama did not say whether his administration would take any more concrete steps to help Syrian President Bashar al-Assad see the light.

From Informed Comment

On Tuesday, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, slammed al-Maliki for his anti-Sunni policies, warning in essence that if the Shiite-dominated army represses Iraq’s Sunnis, Turkey (a Sunni-majority country) would feel constrained to intervene. Turkey has already made military incursions into Iraq in hot pursuit of Kudistan Workers’ Party (PKK) guerrillas who have attacked military and civilian targets in eastern Turkey.

Turkey’s embassy in Baghdad was targeted by (inaccurate) rocket fire twice last week.

Turkey’s Erdogan and Iraq’s al-Maliki are also at odds over Syria, with Erdogan calling for Bashar al-Assad to step down and al-Maliki more or less supporting the al-Assad government. (Al-Maliki is said to fear that the secular Baath Party might be overthrown by Sunni radicals who will give aid to Sunni insurgents in Iraq).

Turkey: Intervention in Syria: What Next? — Ruşen Çakır:

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s interview on Al Arabiya channel can be defined as a milestone in Ankara’s Syria politics. Of course, I’m referring to Davutoğlu’s open pronouncement of the possibility of Turkey’s intervention in Syria. Let’s remember the foreign minister’s words first.

“If the regime continues to kill protesters, then this goes beyond being a matter for Turkey but will become an international issue. Then, that case calls for United Nations intervention. Turkey, in the 1980s, called the United Nations to intervene to protect the Kurds from Saddam’s atrocities after the Halabja massacre. If the Arab League initiative fails and murders continue, Turkey will not hesitate to support the U.N. decision that anticipates an intervention in Syria.”

Let’s not be unfair to him. Davutoğlu is talking about an intervention in the case of a situation where several conditions must mature. In other words, the Baath regime will continue to massacre its own people and other initiatives will fail to prevent this. The U.N. will decide on a resolution and Turkey will intervene. (Indeed, here, we need to pay attention to the stress in the sentence “Turkey will not hesitate.”) When the course of events of today is reviewed, we can see that the probability of this scenario of coming true is high.

…..Frankly, Ankara has openly taken a stance against the Bashar al-Assad regime for some time, which personally does not bother me and I think this was way over due. It was more bothersome that close relations with the al-Assad family were established, ….But a significant portion of today’s Syrian opposition segments were nothing more than “Baath lovers” in line with the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government’s approach.

Possible outcomes

It’s obvious that an international intervention, in which Turkey will participate, will create extremely dangerous results and our country will be negatively affected by those. First of all, we face the risk of a sectarian conflict. As Davutoğlu emphasized in the same interview, the Syrian people took to the streets as an extension of the Arab Spring for a more democratic administration to replace the oppressive Baath regime, but in time, the reaction also became directed at not only the political power, but also the Nusayri (Alawite) minority that supported it.

Even though there are more differences than similarities between the Nusayris and the Shiites, this risk should not be completely disregarded given that, together with the effect of the strategic partnership between Tehran and Damascus, Sunni-Nusayri tension in Syria could spread to the entire region as a Sunni-Shiite conflict. There will, necessarily, be reverberations of this bitter development in Turkey.

In the event that an international intervention in Syria (one that could last long) triggers a civil war, the stance to be adopted by the Kurds in this country directly interests Ankara. There are serious claims that the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has recently re-established very strong relations with the Baath regime and that al-Assad may use this organization as a tool to blackmail Ankara.

As a result, it is good and it is correct to side with the people against the Syrian regime, but it is not wise to side with military intervention.

Ruşen Çakır is a columnist for daily Vatan in which this piece appeared on Jan 23. It was translated into English by the Daily News staff.

Syrians won’t go along with Obama’s wishes, RT, 25 January,

President Obama’s promise to bring “strong and stable democracy” to Syria alarms its population, which sees the shining examples of Iraq and Libya and realizes what fate awaits it, says Dr. Ali Muhammad, editor-in-chief of the website Syria Tribune… “Every Syrian knows that the country will never go back to what it was one year ago, but at the same time the change will be decided by the Syrian people, not by the US or anybody else,”argues Dr. Ali Muhammad…..

Hind Aboud Kabawat: The Assad delusion, 2012-01-30
National Post, By Hind Aboud Kabawat

…Ten months later, I have come to rue those words; but they do, however, capture the ambiguity that many Syrian liberals (like myself) felt about the best way to modernize Syrian society and democratize the Syrian state. We wanted political change, absolutely, but we also coveted stability. And even as the barricades went up on the streets of Cairo and Sana, Tripoli and Tunis, we believed that Damascus and Aleppo, Homs and Hama would be spared such chaos. How wrong we were….

DIPLOMACY TO REMOVE ASSAD GAINS MOMENTUM, By David Pollock and Andrew J. Tabler
WINEP – January 25, 2012

President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday evening had much to say about the economy, but relatively little about foreign policy. Yet one line from that brief section stands out: “And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change can’t be reversed, and that human dignity can’t be denied.”

This sentence, which puts the United Stated firmly behind the demise of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, is all the more striking because it followed so closely upon the president’s description of Qadhafi as “gone.” Beyond the mere fact of singling out Syria’s government for such dishonorable mention, Obama’s statement used two very specific words that loom large in a context where every word reflected deliberate decision. First was his use of “soon,” indicating an assessment that Assad does not have much time left in power. Second was “regime,” indicating an official U.S. expectation that not just Assad personally but his whole ruling clique must also go.

Equally significant were the president’s next lines, which suggest that Washington is planning diplomatic rather than direct physical intervention in the Syrian crisis. Affirming that “we have a huge stake in the outcome” of “this incredible transformation” in the Arab region, President Obama nonetheless acknowledged that “its end remains uncertain” and that “it is ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their own fate.” Even so, he asserted that the United States will “stand against violence and intimidation” and “support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies.”

And, in fact, U.S. and international diplomacy aimed at removing Assad is quickly gaining momentum. An Arab League ministerial meeting on January 22 found that the Syrian government’s “partial progress” was “not enough” and urged the establishment within two months of a “national unity government” based on a “serious political dialogue” with the opposition — all under the authority of a vice president, rather than President Assad. Not surprisingly, the Assad regime rejected this plan, arguing that it went beyond the Arab League’s authority, violated Syrian sovereignty, and represented “a conspiratorial scheme hatched against Syria” for foreign intervention “led by the Qatari government.”

At the same time, the League’s report mandates an immediate referral of its plan to the UN Security Council. Qatar’s prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, Hamad bin Jassim, and Arab League secretary Nabil al-Araby are delegated with this task. In anticipation of this maneuver, intense behind-the-scenes Security Council consultations are now underway.

Over the last few days, Western countries led by France have drafted a Security Council resolution, with senior U.S. diplomats involved in these discussions in both Paris and New York. The draft demands that Syria cooperate fully with the UN high commissioner for human rights and the special Commission of Inquiry of the UN Human Rights Council, and allow “full access for humanitarian relief.” It requests the UN secretary-general to support the appointment of a new Arab League special envoy to Syria, which media reports speculate could be Egypt’s Mohammed ElBaradei, to supplement the largely ineffective Arab League monitoring mission in that strife-torn country. And, should the Assad regime fail to comply, the draft “encourages all States” to adopt political and economic sanctions similar to those outlined by the Arab League last November, including cutting ties with Syria’s central bank.

Significantly, the absence of mandatory sanctions from this draft resolution is calculated to help secure the necessary Russian support (or at least abstention) in the Security Council….

For all of the media bias, the blood of Syrians tells the story – The National,
Faisal Al Yafai, Jan 24, 2012

The clouds of conspiracy are gathering over Syria. With more than half of Syrians supporting President Bashar Al Assad, there has been a concerted effort by the western media to minimise his domestic support while maximising criticism of his failings. In particular, the effectiveness of the observer mission is questioned, to speed the day when the United Nations authorises Nato intervention and ushers into power a more pro-western Syrian government.

That, at least, is the analysis of the situation that has been best articulated by Jonathan Steele in the Guardian and Aisling Byrne of the Beirut-based Conflicts Forum website. It is not wrong. But it is not right, either. Very few of the separate claims of this theory are inaccurate, but the way they are strung together misses the nature of what is happening in the Levant….

‘Why we have a responsibility to protect Syria’ (Shadi Hamid, The Atlantic)

“There are a number of reasons why intervention,today, would be premature…But it may not be premature in a month or in two. The international community must begin considering a variety of military options — the establishment of “safe zones” seems the most plausible — and determine which enjoys the highest likelihood of causing more good than harm. This is now — after nearly a year of waiting and hoping — the right thing to do. It is also the responsible thing to do.”

Syria: Arab League roadmap is ‘attack on national sovereignty’

“Syria rejects the decisions taken which are outside an Arab working plan, and considers them an attack on its national sovereignty and a flagrant interference in internal affairs,” state TV quoted an official as saying.

Grave abuses by both sides – that was the conclusion of the report by the League of Arab States (LAS) monitors. The League’s foreign ministers called on President Bashar al-Assad to delegate power to his vice president and form a national unity government with the opposition.

The Syrian official reacting to the Arab League’s call said the regional body should instead “assume its responsibilities for stopping the financing and arming of terrorists,” the television channel reported.

“Unanswered Questions About Syria Intervention”, by Jeremy Pressman

This is a must read.

Over the Horizon: Syria, Iran and the Enduring Allure of Airpower
By Robert Farley | 25 Jan 2012

Who shall we bomb next? Pundits and commentators have begun to fall over themselves declaring the necessity of launching military campaigns against Syria and Iran — the former to prevent a humanitarian disaster and the latter to forestall the development of a nuclear weapon. The catalyst for this enthusiasm is the success of NATO’s aerial campaign in Libya, a war that apparently vindicated the long-standing promise of advanced, precision-guided airpower to cheaply and easily solve inconvenient political problems. Unfortunately, the rediscovered enthusiasm for intervention demonstrates only that the foreign policy punditocracy is committed to serially mislearning the lessons of airpower in war…..

Steven Cook argues that the United States and NATO ought to start seriously discussing intervention in Syria. If not and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is left to massacre his political opponents, he wonders, what message will it send to the international community about the right to protect? Anne-Marie Slaughter reluctantly concurs, suggesting that Western military power could ensure the security of safe harbors and corridors for Syrian civilians. …

Former CIA unit chief Michael Scheuer discusses Syria and the Arab spring (h-t Camille Otrakji’s Syria Page)
Monday, January 16th, 2012

Michael Scheuer confirms the United States’ involvement in attempts to overthrow the Syrian regime. He explains Washington’s dilemma in dealing with the Arab Spring and how Washington’s “mindless pursuit of secular democracy” in fact created anarchy and empowered extremist Islamists.

سيريا بوليتيك ينشر السيرة الذاتية “الجبهوية” لعضو مجلس الشعب “المنشقعماد عبدالكريم غليون” - Syria Politic publishes the biography of the member of parliament who defected

Not short, tight or shiny: new dress code could see women forced into veils – Niqash

New guidelines on how the Iraqi government’s female employees should dress have caused a furore. The conservative Ministry of Women’s affairs says it is protecting female dignity while women’s rights advocates say it’s an attack on personal freedoms. by Kholoud Ramzi in Baghdad (26.01.2012)more

Watching Syria Sadly by Professor Brian Stoddard

EU tightens sanctions on Syria
English.news.cn 2012-01-23

BRUSSELS, Jan. 23 (Xinhua) — Foreign Ministers of the European Union (EU) on Monday decided to tighten restrictive measures against Syria.

The foreign affairs council of the EU added 22 persons responsible for “human rights violations” and eight entities “financially supporting the regime” to the list of those subject to an asset freeze and a ban from entering the EU.

This brings the total number of entities targeted by an asset freeze to 38 and the number of people subject to an asset freeze and a visa ban to 108.

In response to the violence in Syria, the EU has gradually imposed a comprehensive set of restrictive measures on Syria, including an arms embargo, a ban on the import of Syrian crude oil and on new investment in the Syrian petrol sector.

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton said: “Today’s decision will put further pressure on those who are responsible for the unacceptable violence and repression in Syria.”

“The message from the European Union is clear: the crackdown must stop immediately. We will continue to do all we can to help the Syrian people achieve their legitimate political rights,” said Ashton.

Against Syrian anger, Assad’s sect feels fear
By Mariam Karouny, DAMASCUS | Wed Feb 1, 2012

It will be remembered as a banner year for American democracy. Emboldened by economic crisis and inspired by revolutionary upheaval overseas, its citizens took to the streets in 2011 to show their frustration with stale political leadership. In doing so, they awakened a fresh discussion about the very nature of democracy in the United States and Occupy Wall Street (OWS) became an inescapable component of the international political landscape.

As an idea and a rallying cry, “Occupy Wall Street” is now a concept that has been adopted around the world. Protests from London to Tel Aviv have used its battle cry of embracing the power of the forgotten majority. Ironically, its roots can be tracked to the very consumerist trends its founders have been rallying against, most notably the marketability of a revolution in a time of global unrest.

Last July, the Canadian anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters, best known for its sharp attention-grabbing stunts like “Buy Nothing Day”, began the hashtag “occupywallstreet” on Twitter and disseminated an iconic poster portraying a ballerina precariously balancing atop the Wall Street bull. With these subtle moves, Adbusters tapped into the growing discontent in North America, and provided a rallying point for activists in the United States.

In September, a group of 1,000 activists answered the Adbusters call and marched to the barricaded New York Stock Exchange in the heart of Lower Manhattan. Unable to literally occupy Wall Street, they descended on two privately owned spaces designated for public use close by, the atrium of Deutsche Bank’s North American headquarters and Zuccotti Park, which became the site of a lively tent encampment and the epicentre of the movement. It was precisely the choice of privately owned public spaces that protected the activists from immediate eviction by New York City law-enforcement officials.

The early days are a haze to most of the seasoned core of OWS. “Every day felt like a dog year,” William Dobbs, a member of the group’s press team told me in a phone conversation. Lauren Minis, a native of New York City, recently returned from a long trip abroad and was looking for a job when the occupation began. Disenchanted with an American political system that does not represent her values and a cynical electorate seemingly unable or unwilling to change the nature of the system, she was naturally drawn to the public outburst of direct democracy that has typified OWS. Immediately after her first visit, she assumed a leadership position in the sustainability working group.

As the movement grew and without a clear manifesto, US media outlets struggled to place it in the traditional political map. Some mainstream news organisations attempted to portray it as one of entitlement by focusing on the large numbers of unemployed college students, outfitted with shiny Apple computers, who made up the protesters’ ranks.

Despite the media’s apparent confusion, excessive crowd control measures exercised by local police forces – including critically wounding an Iraqi war veteran with a rubber bullet during the evacuation of the Occupy Oakland encampment – guaranteed international media exposure. Without the bellicose reaction of the police, it is doubtful the movement would have been able to enjoy such lavish coverage. Who says protesters need to be violent when the system they are confronting provides all the violence necessary to grab the headlines?

The mainstream US political establishment has used Occupy Wall Street as a platform to attack policies and blame “the other”. The “blame game” of American politics has pushed people like Alejandro Verla, 31, a public health worker and member of the empowerment and action working group at OWS, to seek out different types of political action they see embodied in the movement. “I worked for two months straight to get Obama elected,” Verla told me. “Now I want nothing to do with mainstream politics. We need to change the way Americans think about politics and democracy.”

Inside a quirky coffee shop in the affluent Upper East Side neighbourhood of Manhattan, Joshua Stephens, a 30-something professional dog walker, explained OWS with a liberal smattering of Foucault, Deleuze and classic anarchist theory. A member of the outreach and education working group, Stevens noted that the occupation has opened a space for Americans to acquire the dexterity necessary to engage in direct democracy. Between sips of thick espresso, he triumphantly pointed out that every person who attends a general assembly meeting – the nightly consensus gatherings that determine the Occupy movement’s strategy – leaves radicalised in some way. For OWS, this has been its greatest success and perhaps its only goal.

For Stevens and many others, OWS has changed traditional notions of how the left operates in the United States. In recent years, that group has watched grassroots right-wing movements (like the Tea Party) achieve electoral results and concrete media success. For many, social issues have been ignored due to the need to combat American foreign policy blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not only has OWS demonstrated that the left is concerned with such issues but it has also confirmed that the rest of the world is willing to stand in solidarity with an American struggle for income equality.

OWS, according to Stephens, has placed the American left at the centre of an international movement of dissent.

“It is strange that OWS has gained such international presence,” Micha Whiteman, a press liaison officer for the movement told me in the heart of the Zuccotti Park encampment at the beginning of November. “I remember the inspiration that I had while watching the Egyptian revolution unfold on Al Jazeera. The funny thing is that I had to watch [it] online because Al Jazeera is not available in the United States. Now Egyptians are watching our movement unfold with the same hopeful anticipation.”

The growth and rhetoric of OWS has clear similarities with other revolutions that shook the globe this year, but this summer’s Israeli tent protests seem to be nearly identical. Those protests began when a small group of young Tel Aviv residents erected a tent encampment in the middle of the city’s posh Rothschild Boulevard to demonstrate against high rents. Within a matter of weeks, hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets demanding greater economic equality and social justice. However, the tent protesters refused to deal with the “political” issues of occupation and the institutional discrimination that non-Jewish citizens of Israel face on a daily basis, leading some to voice criticism at the honesty of the movement.

Israeli demonstrators argued vociferously that Israeli society had become too apathetic to economic policies that reflect incredible income inequality and the greed of Israeli politicians. According to its leaders, the absence of a “political” discussion concerning Palestinians and their lack of clear demands allowed for a space of radicalisation where rank-and-file Israelis could debate politics in order to learn a new language of democratic discourse. At the height of the movement, 500,000 Israelis took to the streets of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa – the proportional equivalent of 17 million Americans – demanding social justice.

Yet, by the end of summer, the Israeli movement had all but fizzled away. With the tent encampments evacuated by law-enforcement officials, many of the protesters simply went back to their normal lives. Occupy Wall Street has clearly learnt an important lesson from its Israeli counterpart. Namely, that core social issues must be dealt with directly and not pushed aside.

For the past month, tent encampments from Los Angeles to Philadelphia have been evicted by police forces with surprising regularity. On November 15, Zuccotti Park was cleared by New York City police officers and is now only being used for meetings during daylight hours. A court case is pending to see whether the activists will be allowed to return to the park. Some activists have responded to the evictions with protest marches from New York City to Washington DC as well as planned blockades of West Coast port facilities. The activists are fighting to stay relevant now that their tent cities have disappeared and it is unclear whether OWS will succeed. For some involved in the movement it is time to regroup, return home and plan larger actions for next year.

Exactly what has the Occupy Wall Street movement accomplished in its short existence?

This unavoidable question has plagued it from the beginning but might miss the point, according to many of those living in tents across the nation. Unable to change the system from within, the OWS movement has successfully amended the national political landscape in the United States. By challenging income inequality, grassroots activists have presented an often ignored demand to expand democratic enfranchisement to a broad majority of Americans.

The growth and international support for the movement, coupled with a deep ongoing crisis in the global economy, has guaranteed that the discontent projected by Occupy Wall Street will certainly not disappear anytime soon. Despite clear plans for the future and even without explaining exactly what she meant in concrete terms, Lauren Minis ended our conversation on an upbeat note, “We are working on creating a new paradigm that is so appealing that people don’t have to think twice about walking away from the old one.”

Published in The National on 30 December 2011

Imprisoned Palestinian engineer, Jafar Daghlas

In a story reminiscent of the kidnapping of Dirar Abusisi, a Palestinian engineer known for his activities in support of Hamas, has been arrested and interrogated for long periods by the Mukhabarat in both the United Arab Emirates and Jordan:

Was Israel behind the overseas arrest of a Palestinian engineer suspected of ties with Hamas? The arrested man thinks it was – but Hamas blames the Palestinian Authority.

Jafar Daghlas, 27, a resident of the West Bank town of Burka who until recently lived in Abu Dhabi, has been questioned by two different Arab security services recently – those of the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. He suspects Israel was trying to get him extradited here

The victim enlisted the support of a professional engineering association in Jordan and Friends of Humanity, a human rights NGO which intervened on his behalf to prevent what he expected would be his extradition to Israel.  It appears too that if he had been extradited and imprisoned in Israel, this would’ve been doing the PA’s bidding as well, since it accuses him of fundraising and arms trafficking on behalf of Hamas.  It’s quite a cozy, comfy relationship all these mukhabaratnikim (there probably isn’t even such a Hebrew word, but I like the sound of it) have with each other.

In the case of Abusisi, the Mossad presumably alerted the Jordanian intelligence services to his travel from Gaza to Jordan.  When he arrived there he was questioned and detained for a number of days, which I believe allowed the Mossad to prepare for his kidnapping in Ukraine, which was the final stop on his travel itinerary.

It’s astonishing, considering the hostile relations much of the Arab world has with Israel, for intelligence agencies of these particular countries to do the Mossad’s bidding.

Domestic Crusaders: The Mini movie!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugZs8c8sYyw

I would approach this story with caution – after all it was published in the trashy Rose al-Youssef – but I'd like to confirm some of these tidbits:

In “Egypt’s First Lady: 30 Years on the Throne of Egypt,” to be published this year, Mubarak says that the United States gave her and her family asylum. A special envoy from the United States, she wrote, arrived in Cairo in early February 2011 with all the documents required to have in order to leave Egypt, but her husband refused to leave.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait gave the Mubarak family the same offer. However, the author adds, all those asylum documents were taken from the family in the Red Sea city of Sharm al-Sheikh on February 11, 2011, the day the president stepped down.

In the memoirs, Mubarak recounts how she had a nervous breakdown when she knew she was to be arrested, which drove her to try to commit suicide through overdosing on sleeping pills.

She was later rescued and her husband conacted several countries and begged many officials to let her stay with him in the hospital. His wish was granted, provided that she does not leave the hospital.

I like the bit where she says her childhood dream was "to become a flight attendant." After all, she was married to a man whose hope for retirement was to run Egypt Air. And also this nugget:

Among the secrets Mubarak reveals in her memoirs is that her husband did not think that he would be able to leave the palace and was almost certain that he would be assassinated. That is why he asked the Presidential Guard not to leave him alone for one minute and even used to let them accompany him to the bathroom.

                    

Diplomats Discuss Bashar al-Assad’s Future as Syria Fights Rebels – NYTimes.com.

This is an important article on the stage we find ourselves in of the Syrian revolution. Russia’s defense to the last of the Assad regime is a significant political reality that points much more deeply to the problem and challenge of global, that is, Security Council consensus on matters of global governance when massive human rights abuses are occurring. We are still at a kind of Cold War impasse when it comes to the spheres of influence of the United States, Europe and Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other. The United States political narrative on such matters, and in such crunch times, runs something like this:

We the United States stand for human rights and democracy, and Russia and China only care about defending illiberal states and their sovereignty because they know that the increasing power of interference in the abuses inside states is an inherent threat to how they operate inside their own countries.

The Russian narrative runs like this: We are the champions against the hypocrites in the United States who claim to be championing human rights even as they provide all the machinery to keep the Gulf under the exclusive power of Sunni extremists, who by the way foment rebellions all over our border states and regions, not to mention their support for crushing the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. And we are sure that their increasing military support for Uzbekistan is due to the stellar human rights record there, not Exxon’s contracts, or the opportunity to invade our geopolitical spheres, as they have done throughout the Cold War. Now they want to crush our ally in Syria. We trained almost all their senior leaders, we have invested in that country for decades, and the West smells blood, actively foments rebellion, in order to destroy our client. They do not care a wit about the human rights abuses surely to come with the reign of the Muslim Brothers. If they want to make Syria a battle ground, then we can play that game also.

Here is my narrative:

The United States and the Western European powers should get off their high horses when it comes to human rights. Their interests have always been economic and spheres of influence and power, systems of enemies and allies. They are every bit as committed to covering up the human rights abuses of their allies as they are to self-righteously exposing the human rights abuses of their adversaries, notably Syria and Iran.

Here is the most important point: It is not helping human rights for there to continue to be a stand-off between United States and Russia on these matters of global governance. We have come very far toward increasing global governance and the rule of law as a human community, but this division of powers and especially the lack of honesty about the real interests at stake, and their cover by the self-righteous language of human rights and democracy, is actually getting many people killed in a number of countries while retarding the growth of human rights and democratic governance.

I heard from one wise political scientist at my university yesterday that what drives so much of Russian foreign policy is its sphere of influence. Correspondingly, I heard a wise comment from another university historian and colleague that there is no greater predictor of the downfall of regimes then the demoralization of its ruling elite. As long as they are not demoralized, as long as they have confidence, millions could die before they give up. That means, in real terms, that the lack of agreement between the U.S. and Russia on what to do with Syria is giving the regime its confidence, its hope and insistence on persisting in the killing spree. With agreement there would be global consensus and the increasing small elite in Damascus would be completely demoralized. This means that human rights is being hurt not helped, paradoxically by the U.S. appealing to human rights, and the ‘voice of the people’ ONLY when it would, in zero-sum terms, increase their sphere of influence, and push back Iran by defeating the Assad regime. In other words, in the name of human rights defense, this is actually a zero sum game of geopolitical struggle, once again between the United States and Russia.

I suggest a third way, for the sake of the Syrian people, and for the sake of the future of global governance that we want to nudge more and more toward rational cooperation, nonviolent integration and power sharing. The focus should not be on the United Nations vote and bullying Russia to buy in, as well as China. The focus should be on the great powers deciding how to divide up the spoils of Syria. I am being serious. What I aM saying is that honest conversations between great powers, a recognition of state and corporate interests, and a proper negotiation over those matters, may significantly increase the chances for human rights, for democracy, for nonviolence in Syria, but also in other countries in conflict right now. If the United States leaders are serious about human rights and democracy then they should actually stop talking about it so much and start doing something about it, and the best thing they can do for human rights is take off their self-righteous language and admit their interests, at the very least in terms of honest conversations and brokering between themselves, the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese, together with the new potential leaders of Syria. In other words, a way to move forward nonviolently to better futures for these countries in dispute is to acknowledge and accept current monopolies or spheres of influence that currently exist. If, for example, Russia’s interests in Syria represent right now a certain portion of the defense business of Syria, then future leaders should be working out with Russia a continuity of commitment. The United States and Europe, if they are serious about human rights and democracy, should be supporting that effort. The same goes for policies in other countries.

The institutions of international struggle for human rights must remain in place, including those at the United Nations. The human rights reports coming out of the State Department are a good contribution. But American leaders must stop brow beating everyone, especially the Russians, with self-righteous language and start bargaining chances on real matters of future governance and transitions of power.

What I am arguing for is a form of emerging global governance that strips away  self-righteous language from the negotiating state and focuses on ways to transition societies in peaceful and prosperous and more just directions, without using instability and revolution as an opportunity to shift the balance of power between the major global powers. This must be accomplished by the Security Council members and a shift in their public discourse with each other. We as analysts and activists must take the veil off of self-righteousness in order to induce more great power honest negotiations, and to more aggressively and quickly serve the human rights of populations in conflict zones around the world.

To: IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny GantzDear Sir:Gradually, but as a practical matter at a dizzying speed, they're stealing the army - the air force, at least - from under you. That's what I conclude from the experience of my son, who serves as a technician at an air force base in the center of the country, and also a bit from what I have seen myself.Soon your army will only function with the approval of rabbis and, most unfortunately, this is also your fault.

“We have 13 lawsuits against drivers for not enforcing the law, and it’s very effective,” Hoffman said. “Those suits for damages are helping to unlearn what 10 years of segregated buses have taught.”

“Women are in the world, and the kids see that the women know more. So how else can the Orthodox world keep them in their place other than to say, ‘You might know more in the modern world, but in the religious world, you should know your place.’ ”

Above is my latest appearance on Tzinor Layla (starting at around 2:30) in which I discuss the crash of the drone inside Israel two days ago.

I’ve spent the past day or so trying to make sense of the duelling stories of the crash. My Israeli source said that the unmanned aircraft was foreign, likely flown by Hezbollah with Iranian technical assistance from southern Lebanon. Shortly after I posted, the IAF released its version saying its own drone crashed while testing advanced sensors installed on its wing. Supposedly, the wing separated from the drone, and images of a severed wing were displayed in the media. Eyewitnesses were interviewed who claim to have seen the drone on fire before it crashed, though it’s not clear where they were physically located. Though the body of the drone was not pictured, it reportedly crashed into an air base (though the name wasn’t specified). My source claimed the booby trapped drone crashed and exploded at the top secret Sdot Micha missile base. The IAF claimed the drone crashed while making an approach to the Tel Nof base.

IAF claims this wing fell off its most advanced drone causing it to crash (Aviv Rokach)

For those who reject my story, let’s examine the IAF story. They claim that Israel’s most advanced drone, testing highly sophisticated new sensor systems simply lost its wing due to equipment and human error. Either this is a colossal episode of incompetence or the story doesn’t hold water. They showed a wing in an orange orchard and nothing else. I could not see any damage to the wing indicating it had dropped off a drone in flight and crashed. They offered no military or drone experts to verify what was shown in the footage. I would wonder why military and police personnel at the site would allow photography and video filming of some of Israel’s most advanced new technology. Even if they couldn’t prevent such filming they could easily impose military censorship on reporting the story. They didn’t. This is contrary to the absolute secrecy Israel imposes on its military technology.

So continuing with this line of thought, if Israel did lose one of its most advanced drones it is a major setback in this program. As news reports make clear, this drone is one that can reach Iran and would be used for multiple critical aerial tasks during an Israeli air assault on Iran. The fact that it crashed on a test flight only a few miles from its base, when Israel is known to be preparing for a possible strike against Iran, is a major failure. So again, even if you discount my version of events, the IAF has not presented a credible version either. Anyone who seeks to discredit the Hezbollah angle of this story should present a credible alternative. I have heard none from the other side.

The usual suspects on the right and left have criticized the story I reported. None of them very carefully read, understood or reported what I actually wrote. Dimi Reider, who prides himself on being a careful, sober journalist argued erroneously that I claimed the drone flew 1,000 miles from Iran to Israel, when in fact I argued just the opposite, saying it likely could not fly that far and originated in southern Lebanon. Reider also believed I was being “played” by Israeli sources seeking war against Iran. In fact, my source opposes war against Iran. All of which proves that someone who prides himself on precision can be guilty of the same errors of which he accuses me.

Dapha Baram, writing at the world news agency GRN, pointed with pride to the reasons why her news agency could not publish my reports because they fall below its standards of “journalist ethics.” She failed to understand that my decision to report or not report a story has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with other factors including my physical distance from the story and sources I’m reporting, the vagaries of the Israeli national security state which intimidate the free flow of military information to journalists, and my role as an anti-war activist coinciding with my role as a blogger. In fact, the very reason why Israeli security issues are so thinly reported inside and outside Israel is that the system prevents mainstream journalists from doing this.

None of this means I can knowingly report stories that are false (nor would I ever do so). On the other hand, I am reporting stories that aren’t (and usually can’t be) corroborated by second or third independent sources. That in turn means that the mainstream media is too conservative and cautious to publish my original reporting. This may save them from reporting a story that turns out to be criticized or unsubstantiated; but it also causes them to lose out when I report major stories embarrassing to the Israeli military-intelligence community.  That’s why you’ll never see Reider or GRN breaking the story of Anat Kamm, Dirar Abusisi, Ameer Makhoul, the Eilat terror attacks, or Shamai Leibowitz.

My critics fundamentally misunderstand what I do. My primary job isn’t to be an oracular James Reston or Walter Cronkite and only report what is scientifically, verifiably true and be right 100% of the time. My primary job is to be right as often as I can while staying true to the reasons I write this blog in the first place: to promote transparency in Israeli military-intelligence matters, Israeli democracy, and to oppose military adventurism.  This is a tightrope act, one that is difficult to negotiate since there are so many unknowns, so much concealed information.

The goal of the national security state is to render its affairs as opaque as possible. It is to shut off information to journalists, bloggers and even its own citizens. That’s why it’s sometimes so damn hard to know if you got it right. But if anyone thinks I’m going to be deterred by the fact that every once in a while the I’s aren’t dotted or the T’s aren’t crossed or that even, God forbid, my source may get it wrong (which I do not concede in this instance), they’re sorely mistaken. I’ll accept the brickbats of Dimi Reider, Dapna Baram and others for the sake of the greater good of exposing the dangers a rampant Israel may pose to the region and the world.

A few weeks ago, I emailed an old friend in Gaza, a thirty something economist, to seek out his expertise. Years ago, when I was living in Gaza, he and I frequently exchanged thoughts on the situation, particularly during the frenzy of the Disengagement, and I always valued his opinion. That was then.

I was writing a side-bar on the economic situation for my forthcoming book, The Gaza Kitchen, and was trying to remember a phrase he had frequently used to describe the paradoxical way that the Palestinian economy as a whole, and particular in Gaza, functions, where aid dependence is nearly 80%, yet where prices on par with a developed country.

Was it “lopsided economy” I asked him in an email, a response to a “happy holidays” message he had sent out to all his friends?

His response, which had nothing -and everything-to do with my question, took me by surprise:

Hi Laila. Things haven’t been good in Gaza lately. I was laid-off work 2 months ago when the US Congress decided to freeze aid to the PA. So the US company I was working with laid-off 30 of its employees, and I was one of the unfortunate ones. The Gaza job market is still going through a dry spell. Imagine a market that does not produces more than 10 vacancies / month at best!

I am trying to apply outside Gaza, but opportunities without good connections and a foreign citizenship are very difficult to get. In 2009, I tried to renew my Egyptian residency and move out of Gaza for good. However, the Egyptian authorities denied my request. So I am left struggling here applying for whatever jobs there are even if they are a down-grade from where I used to be.

I hope that you, your husband and the kids are all well. Anyway, sorry to respond with a very gloomy email, and I still believe that one has to keep faith and try to survive the ups and downs of life.

Gaza is commonly associated with gloom, so the email, one might argue, should not have caught me by surprise. After all, two in three Gazans live in poverty; three-quarters of the population is food insecure or vulnerable, and roughly one-third of the work-force is unemployed-a figure that nearly doubles when one takes into account the youth, who make up more than half the population. 30, 000 people join their ranks every year.

In spite of this, the most secure have always been the urban elite (or else, one might argue, anyone with an excellent command of English and a fixer contract. Media is the one enterprise that seems to thrive in such dark times), but in particular those who work with the countless international organizations and NGOs, who increasingly over the past few years have come to rely on local hires.

Yet here is one of these so-called “western minded moderates”, to quote a frequent and favorite refrain of Congress, educated in Cairo’s American University,booted from his job as a direct result of this same Congress’s policies aimed at, what exactly? Punishing the PA for its statehood bid? For attempting to reconcile with Hamas? Or simply in deference to Israel, their masters?

The West Bank, the conventional thinking might go, is a different story: we have become accustomed to hearing glowing World Bank reports about how well Fayyad’s Ramallah is doing. Earlier today, I came across a TIME blog post which depicts a similarly gloomy outcast, one that many Palestinian analysts have argued was a long-time coming:

In a donor economy – which Palestine emphatically is – tides and waves are governed by the whims of distant overlords as much as by global finance. Since 2007, Washington has sent some $4 billion to the West Bank, intent on encouraging the moderate governance of PA President Mahmoud Abbas, whose secular Fatah party the militants of Islamist Hamas had just chucked out of Gaza. While Israel enforced a siege on the coastal strip in hopes of making Hamas less popular, the international community gushed dollars into Ramallah. Thus did the city just north of Jerusalem take on the look of a boom town, its hills stippled with construction cranes and flashy new restaurants, especially on the north end, where aid agencies and “non-governmental organizations” set up shop…the effort put money in the pockets of the educated, Western-oriented locals who worked there. Those are the people being laid off now.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

Why is the Syrian opposition so divided? Here are some of the main divisions running through Syrian society:

Sunni versus Alawi
Poor versus rich
Rural versus urban
Homs and Hama versus Aleppo and Damascus
Baathists versus Non-Baathists
Religious versus Secular
Saudi Arabia versus Iran
USA versus Russia

Welcome to the cocktail of the new Syrian revolution.

I returned home to Syria two weeks ago. Many of my friends were surprised that I would make the long trip at this time of gathering war.

For two weeks, I traveled (flew) between Aleppo and Damascus. I talked to rich and poor: bankers, taxi drivers, young protestors from Idlib, rank and file army soldiers stationed in Homs, senior Alawi officers, Christian and tribal Sunni families. I did my best to get a comprehensive view of what people were thinking and how they saw the future.

In what follows, I will present a raw interview-type account of three different encounters that I had. Two were with Taxi drivers. One with a soldier. Even though I had my own car and someone to drive me around, I preferred the taxis to get a better feel.

The First Encounter:

Perhaps the most telling single discussion I had was with a young smart university graduate from Idlib who was driving a taxi which he does not own. Within minutes of his discovering that I lived abroad, he boasted to me that he had taken part in two demonstrations in his home town, Idlib. We arrived at our destination in minutes, but I ask him to keep the meter running. For the next 45 minutes, we talk about the revolution while his car was parked outside my house. Here is a synopsis of our conversation:

Ehsani: Why are you protesting?

He started by describing how his first cousin was killed with 23 other cadets while in service. They were suspected of turning their backs on the army. He described how his village has since gone crazy. He then wonders why I would even ask such a question and proceeds to describe how he is unable to get employed. He calmly talks about corruption and cronyism and how they have infested the ruling party and the business elites. The Aleppo merchants are only interested in money and are in no mood to join the uprising he thought. When he appeared in those Idlib demonstrations, what was the army’s response I wondered? “They just watched,” he said. “I am not going to lie and tell you that they shoot at us.”

“What does the President have to do to gain your support from this point?” I ask. “It is too late. There is nothing” came the quick response”. How long will it take for the revolution to succeed and topple the regime? Four years came the quick response. Naturally, I act surprised. He makes a bet with me that it will be this long. The four years are needed before the country is truly starving and when even the 8-year old is forced to go  down onto the streets to join the protests. “Only then, will the regime fall,” was his explanation. He has a facebook page and he urges me to communicate with him to understand more about the revolution after I leave.

The Second Encounter:

The next day, I hear that there is a  pro-regime maseera (demonstration) under way. I spend two full hours in the city square in an attempt to understand who the participants are. I quickly realize that the Baath party is largely in charge. It is cold but most young men are asked to make a large circle and dance the dabke.  On the other side of the street, groups with a loud speaker are rallying the crowd with songs praising the President and attacking the Emir of Qatar Hamad Al-kalb (the dog).  The Syrian TV is present. Reporters are busy handing their own cell phones to people in the crowd asking them what they think. Many grab the phones and launch into a tirade against the Arab league and Emir Hamad while they urge the government to hit the insurgents hard. An important person must have arrived. He is surrounded by tough looking men pushing the crowd. I turn to one of them and wonder who this man is. “Ameen Al Hizb” was the quick response. The VIP makes it to the front of the Massera and listens to the Hamad references, smiles and heads back to his awaiting car in the distance.  One last dabke group is left. A group of 7 girls arrive. They are distinctly unattractive. They first join the young boys in the dabke circle. They then form their own mini circle in the middle. Another tough looking man seems to be in charge of this young debke crowd. The square is emptying out as it starts to rain. I decide to grab a taxi. Benzene is not available again it seems. A shortage of taxis is evident. One shows up and only decides to take me when he finds out that  my house is on his way home. No Benzene again I ask? He nods and tells me how he will drop me, head home and park the car. Then what will you do I wonder? He quickly snaps back “I will beg”.

Ehsani: How many kids do you have? Answer: Three

Where are you originally from?

Answer: Afreen

Are you a Kurd? Yes.

Are you a naturalized Syrian citizen? Yes.

Ehsani: How much do you need to live a decent life with three kids?

Answer: SYP 20,000 ($285 with SYP at 70 to the Dollar that morning).

Ehsani: How much do you make?

Answer: SYP 15,000 but I pay SYP 4800 in mortgage leaving me with about SYP 10,000 to cover everything for 5 people for a month. I quickly do the math in my head. This is about $ 1 a day per person.

Ehsani: I wonder how you manage. What do your kids demand the most when you get home?

Driver: Farrouj (chicken) which costs SYP 350.

I have three kids myself. The trip is over. I pull out a large money note and hand it to him if he promises that he buys two chickens on his way home after he drops me off. He is shell shocked and tries to refuse it. I insist but only if he keeps his promise to buy the farrouj for the kids.

The Third Encounter:

I get a call from a relative telling me how a young man in his building just came back from serving in Homs. He is allowed to see his family for three days before he needs to return. I ask if I can talk to him. That evening, a 20-year old shows up. He starts by showing me pictures with him in uniform as he sits on the front line of two warring communities in Homs. For the next 30 minutes, he describes how Alawi and Sunni neighborhoods face each other with his unit sitting in between. Both are heavily armed he claims. He seems resigned to the fact that the country faces a long ordeal as sectarian tensions mount. He is a Christian serving with 5 Sunnis. He assures me that the Syrian army is a lot stronger than many believe and that only 10-20% of its capacity has been used thus far.

Ehsani: If Damascus decides to end the Homs insurgency and use its full might, how many people would die?

Soldier: 50,000

Ehsani: What about all of Syria?

Soldier: 100,000. Presently, we have orders not to shoot. We gain little by shooting as the guns will be grabbed by others and the anger will ensure that many more join the revolution. Our unit is one of the weakest. Damascus could easily replace us with stronger divisions if the objective were to take over these neighborhoods and kill the armed elements. This is what I expect will happen at some stage, however.

Ehsani: What will you do once you are done with your service?

Soldier: “Get out of here as fast as I can. I don’t care where I go.” His cousin is sitting next to him nods in agreement. “I will swim across to Cyprus soon,” he adds.

The Aleppo Business Community:

The following morning I accompany my father to the heart of the Aleppo business world. From a nondescript “dekkane” (store),  super astute men seem to run an operation with a turnover of nearly $20 million a year.  Forget about fancy offices or executive secretaries. This is how generations of this family have conducted business – under the radar screen. How many men make up the extended family with the same family name, I ask? Nearly 5,000 I am told.

Ehsani: What has stopped the Aleppo business community from joining the uprising?

Store owner: In Aleppo, the people are wise. They are not interested in taking the country into the majhoul (unknown). We are not interested in sulta (ruling). We want stability.

Ehsani: How much of what is going on in the country is due to sectarian tensions between Sunnis like yourselves and Alawis?

Store owner: We really don’t care who is ruling the country. We care about stability and justice. We are not happy with the corruption and injustice. He then asked me if I had visited the Aleppo court system. The corruption there is mind boggling, I am quickly told. Judges pay between SYP 5 and 10 million to get the job. Every case can be negotiated and priced with his “kateb” (clerk) outside. Many times, individuals who have committed murder can walk away after a short sentence if they pay enough and change the sentence down from capital punishment (iidam). Many operatives in the court have witnesses for hire at their disposal. With enough money, you can buy any testimony-shahade.

As I leave, one man describes how tribal infighting will take this country down the tubes should the regime fall and law and order disappears. You have no idea how much vengeance (tarat) exists between our ashaer (tribes) here in Aleppo, I am reminded.

On the Economy:

The economy is reeling after nearly a year of unrest. To be sure, this is not surprising. During the early months, the local currency was largely stable. The Syrian Central Bank has always used the stable currency exchange rate as a metric of its successful management of the economy. Or, so they thought. For years, everyone was comfortable that the SYP will stay within a reasonable range thanks to ample foreign exchange reserves and a willingness to intervene when needed. This long-held assumption was severely tested as of late. The SYP has by now lost nearly 50% of its value against the Dollar. The Central bank has been powerless to stop it. No one in the country has offered an explanation. People are totally in the dark. For example, It is impossible to know the exact level of reserves at the Central Bank. This number is a national security matter. Logically, the political leadership has realized that this is a long ordeal which dictates that it is perhaps better off holding on to whatever reserves it has rather than wasting them on a futile currency intervention.

The recent devaluation to SYP 73 (the rate earlier today) has caused havoc in the business community. Most sellers of goods and commodities refuse to sell inventories unless they adjust the prices to the new rate. This is why prices have nearly doubled as talk of SYP at 100 makes the rounds. A prominent businessman describes how his local sheikh urged him and others to sell their old inventories at the old exchange rate which was his true cost. He was torn about what to do at first but then decided to ignore the advice and sell at the higher prices to reflect the new exchange rate. The exchange rate of the SYP is now nearly every household’s discussion. Every social meeting starts with the latest rate from an hour ago. The economy is entering a dollarization phase. For any commercial transaction to take place, finding where the latest exchange rate is comes first. As the effects of this currency devaluation filter through, prices at the retail level are likely to head higher. The government does not seem to have the resources to increase the salaries this time. Those on fixed incomes are being crushed.

Concluding Remarks:

According to one of my dear friends, it is impossible to model the final outcome of this crisis. What will happen to the regime and whether it will survive is impossible to forecast. One particularly astute observer assured me that the regime cannot last beyond the end of this year. Again, the person who stuck in my head the most was the young student from Idlib. Indeed, every Syrian who is in the military or who has served there in the past seemed to believe that it will be “years” before the regime is weakened enough to lose. This sentiment was shared by even those in the opposition that I spoke to. Syrians inside the country seem to be well aware of the might of the Syrian army and the security services. Perhaps this is why the hardcore elements of the opposition are pleading for foreign intervention. I think that it is highly unlikely that the regime will lose to the opposition without some form of foreign intervention and/or the Russians turning their back. Niether appears to be on the horizon.

Talk of corruption and cronyism were on everyone’s lips. This subject has been the source of  much of the anger that motivates the opposition. On the last day of my visit to Syria, I heard an analogy to describe the present condition of the regime that struck me as particularly apt. It went like this:

Bashar is driving a bus packed with passengers. Many have been on that bus for years. Those closest to him occupy the front rows of the bus. The uprising is about new faces who also want to board the packed bus. But, for them to jump in, the driver has to throw some of the current passengers of the bus to make room. Bashar looks in the rear view mirror. Who should he pick to throw off the bus? The old Baathists? Members of the Qiyadeh al-Qutriya (The Baath Regional Leadership)? Members of the family?  But those are the people who have stuck with him and helped him survive for nearly a year when few gave him a chance. Does it make any sense to throw aside his loyalists and let in new faces who are publicly asking for his head? Any rationale driver will stay the course as he realizes that changing the driver and turning over the whole bus are the true motivations of his enemies.

During one extremely interesting gathering, I was struck by how politically savvy nearly every Syrian has become. The most interesting and passionate remarks I had heard on this trip came from the women who I met.  During this same dinner, I asked what if anything could Bashar have done differently?

“When the opposition wanted the regime to pull back a step, he should have pulled back four. With the extra space at their disposal, there was more room for them to debate and argue amongst each other leaving the leadership with more time  and breathing space to contemplate their next move”.

I know that I speak for 23 million other Syrians when I worry about where this country is heading. Years ago, I used to speak of buckling our seat belts. Since the crisis started, I have referred to the country having entered a long black tunnel. As we approach the first year anniversary of these events, I wonder where in the dark tunnel we find ourselves.  My pessimistic nature tells me that we are still at its beginning.

Having written a fair bit about the pros and cons (mostly the latter) of a war with Iran, I feel compelled to offer a brief comment on Ronan Bergman's alarmist article in yesterday's New York Times Magazine. I say this even though I think the article was essentially worthless. It's a vivid and readable piece of reportage, but it doesn't provide readers with new or interesting information and it tells you almost nothing about the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran.

First off, the article is essentially a reprise of Jeffrey Goldberg's September 2010 Atlantic Monthly article on the same subject. The research method is identical: a reporter interviews a lot of big-shots in the Israeli security establishment, writes down what they say, and concludes that that Israel is very likely to attack. Bergman doesn't present new evidence or arguments, pro or con; it's just an updated version of the same old story.

Second, the central flaw in this approach is that there is no way of knowing if the testimony of these various officials reflects their true beliefs or not. There are lots of obvious reasons why Israeli officials might want to exaggerate their willingness to use force against Iran, and this simple fact makes it unwise to take their testimony at face value. Maybe they really mean what they say. Or maybe they just want to keep Tehran off-balance Maybe they want to distract everyone from their continued expansion of West Bank settlements and other brutalities against Palestinians. Maybe they want to encourage Europe to support tougher economic sanctions against Iran, and they know that occasional saber-rattling helps makes sanctions look like an attractive alternative. Maybe it's several of these things at once, depending on who's talking. Who knows?

By the way, I'm not accusing the officials that Bergman interviewed of doing anything wrong. I don't expect top officials of any country to tell the truth all the time, and I'm neither surprised nor upset when foreign officials try to manipulate fears of war in order to advance what they see as their interests. My point is that it is impossible to tell if they mean what they are saying or not, which is why an article based on interviews of this kind just isn't very informative. They might be telling the truth, or they might be lying, and nobody knows for sure.

Lastly, as Gary Sick notes in an excellent post of his own, the Bergman piece ignores the considerable evidence suggesting that Iran is not in fact trying to build a nuclear weapon. Equally important are Sick's reminder that the IAEA still has lots of inspectors keeping a watchful eye on Iran's nuclear activities, and his observation that Israel cannot attack Iran without warning, because doing so would almost certainly kill a bunch of IAEA inspectors.

His conclusion (and mine): until Iran expels the inspectors or Israel warns them that it is time to leave, there isn't going to be a war. And if that is the case, then Bergman's scary essay is just another example of empty alarmism.

‏​‏​‎​​تفرغ للصيام وخلي الدعاء علينا .. للحصول على دعوات خاصة

ارسل على حساب رقم

020139698777

مبلغ 1000جنيه ندعي لك قبل أذان المغرب.

‏1500 جنيه ندعي لك قبل المغرب مع بكاء.

‏2000 جنيه ندعي لك آخر الليل وقبل الفجر مع بكاء ايضا وخشوع

ولا يفوتك العرض الخاص فقط 4000 جنيه الباقة الكاملة طيلة شهر رمضان

مع تحيات شركه دعاء الكروان!

إدارة الحاج سليمان الدمنهوري

تقاطع شارع جامعة الدول العربية

الدور الثاني

مكتب دعاء الكروان