Talking about a Revolution: An Interview with Camille Otrakji

Posted by Qifa Nabki ⋅ May 2, 2011 ⋅ 727 Comments

Filed Under Alawites, Bashar al-Assad, Camille Otrakji, Middle East, Salafists, Saudi Arabia, Syria protests

And now for something completely different.

If you’ve been following events in Syria, you’d know that the English-language press is mostly deeply critical of the Assad regime (while the Arabic press displays a slightly wider range of views). I thought it would be worth trying to present a minority report on the situation from a Syrian friend of mine, although, as you will see, he argues precisely that his position is actually held by a very significant majority (albeit a rather quiet and frustrated majority) of Syrians.

Camille Otrakji is a Syrian political blogger based in Montreal. Although he tends to keep a low profile, Otrakji has been, for the past several years, at the forefront of many of the most interesting and influential online initiatives relating to Syrian politics. He is one of the authors and moderators at Joshua Landis’s Syria Comment, and the founder of Creative Syria, a constellation of websites including Mideast Image (a vast collection of original old photographs of Middle Eastern subjects) and Syrian Think Tank (an online debate site hosting many of Syria’s top analysts). Last year, Otrakji courted controversy with a new initiative devoted to the subject of Syrian-Israeli peace, entitled OneMideast.org. He agreed to speak with me about the latest events in Syria, and I’m sure that his views will generate plenty of discussion.

QN: You were recently quoted in The New York Times, arguing that the current situation in Syria is “all being manipulated,” and that the activists are deceiving the Syrian public and the world. Could you elaborate on this?

Otrakji: I believe that a clear majority of Syrians support many of the demands of the peaceful protesters. On the other hand, only a minority of Syrians are willing to risk destabilizing their country in order to try to achieve full regime change after a painful drawn-out conflict.

You might disagree with me if your impression of the state of the protests movement is the product of Aljazeera and BBC Arabic endlessly looping some bloody clip of the day and creating an impression that victory is near for “the Syrian people” who are demonstrating against their despised tyrant. In the early days of the Libyan revolt, Aljazeera created the same “victory-is-easy” impression for the Libyan people and they believed it, and until today they are killing each other and destroying their country.

Despite weekly calls from opposition figures for millions to demonstrate, based on the numbers of people we have seen in the streets of Syria thus far, it is clear that less than 1.0% of the country (about 150,000 Syrians) has joined the protests. This is not Egypt or Yemen, where you had hundreds of thousands or even millions of people protesting every day. In Syria we’ve seen a few thousands here, a few hundred there, mostly on Fridays. And yet western governments, the Syrian opposition, and the media covering Syria are all enthusiastically and casually using the term “the Syrian people” from the first day a few young men demonstrated in the Ummayad mosque. This implies they have the support of the entire Syrian population, which is a very serious distortion of the facts. How do you think the pro-stability Syrians feel when everyone, from Western officials to journalists imply that they are automatically on the side of regime change? No one reported that for weeks Syrians were demonstrating each night in many cities supporting their President. These daily demonstrations, festive and loud, stopped only when interior ministry told the supporters to stop showing their support because they were too noisy. The only time millions demonstrated in Syria was the day Assad’s supporters went to the street in most of Syria’s large cities. It was bizarre that most of the media decided that all these Syrians were chanting and dancing in the streets because they were afraid of the regime, simply because schools and some government offices were given the day off on that day. Ironically, some of the same journalists were also making the point the revolution is bound to succeed because “the barrier of fear has been shattered”.

In addition to distorting the true size of the protests movements, everyone seems to overlook the fact that unlike Egypt’s Tahrir Square, Syria’s protestors have mostly been men. “The Syrian people” include women too, as you can see from the pro-Assad demonstrations. Why didn’t any of those Western financed women rights organizations express any concern after seeing tens of all-male demonstrations so far?

While most protests were genuinely peaceful, many were confrontational and violent. Syria’s police and security personnel are not used to such challenges and sadly in some cases some of them probably reacted with unnecessary violence. But out of an estimated 150,000 protesters so far up to 500 died according to opposition figures. Government claims 78 died, and I believe the real figure is in between, closer to opposition figures. The government claims that many died in armed confrontations. Given that 80 soldiers and policemen also died, it is only logical that non-peaceful armed men were among the hundreds of “civilian” casualties. In other words, not all civilian casualties were peaceful protestors.

Many others probably died through excessive security personnel violence. We need to keep in mind that despite the bitter feeling all of us today have after hundreds died, an investigation of what happened should be conducted.

None of us has access to the truth, but I think it is fair to conclude for now that the numbers imply that it is not true that there is an official policy of shooting randomly at any demonstrator. Many fatal mistakes took place, but many others died while they were taking part in non peaceful confrontations with the army or police. Those who compare Syria’s casualties figures to Egypt’s need to keep in mind that in Egypt protesters were not engaging the army in battles. The 850 who died there were all non armed.

QN: But surely there is public discontent with Bashar al-Assad, or else people would not be risking their lives to demonstrate against the regime.

Otrakji: The revolt started out as a legitimate one, when it was based in Dar’aa. The people there were genuinely fed up with the local head of security, who was a relative of the president, and so at first they protested against his abuse of power and his corruption. But this took place against the backdrop of the events in Egypt and Tunisia, so certain groups decided to try and capitalize on this act of protest in Dar’aa and turn it into a nationwide revolt.

QN: Which groups?

Otrakji: There are many groups who are trying to destabilize the regime. You have the regime change activists overseas, who are financed by various American programs that the Obama administration continued to finance despite seeking better relations with Syria. And you have American technologies that allow you to manipulate anything online. For example, you can help generate virtual members among some of the 150,000 that the Syrian revolution 2011 page on Facebook is proud of.

Then there are many Salafists around the country, guided by Syrian, Saudi, or Egyptian religious leaders. And it is possible that some of the four anti-regime billionaires might be trying to stir the pot for their own, different, reasons; Abdul-Halim Khaddam [former vice president of Syria, currently in exile in Paris], Ribal al-Assad [Bashar’s cousin, and son of Rifaat al-Assad], Saad al-Hariri [current caretaker Prime Minister of Lebanon and son of the slain Rafiq], and Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud [former Saudi ambassador to the US, among other things].

QN: So this is all the work of these outside groups?

Otrakji: No, of course not. As I said, the revolt had a legitimate spark. And there is no doubt that many Syrians are dissatisfied with many aspects of the current regime. But most Syrians would much rather see some meaningful reforms undertaken in a peaceful fashion over the next five years under the current regime, instead of trying to sweep the regime away and dealing with the prospect of sectarian civil war. If Bashar were to sign several laws: (1) permitting the formation of political parties; (2) lifting the tight censorship in the press; (3) and modernizing and limiting the role of the mukhabarat (intelligence services), I believe that 80% of the Syrian people would be fully on board with that. They would say to the opposition: “Thank you very much for your courage. You did a valuable service by giving the regime a ‘cold shower’. But now we’ve had enough of the protests and we want to go back to work. We will give Bashar the benefit of the doubt, until the next presidential election.”

QN: What do you say to those who argue, like Joshua Landis, that the regime’s days are numbered? Landis recently suggested that even if Bashar can weather this storm, the country’s economic woes are a ticking time bomb and eventually the country’s middle class will abandon him.

Otrakji: Dr. Landis might be right, it will be difficult. But I also want to point out that this is not exactly the first time Syria’s economy was predicted to be near collapsing. President Reagan was not the first to wait for his adversaries (the Soviet Union) to surrender after they go broke.

In 1977, when the United States and Israel decided to make peace with Egypt instead of going for a comprehensive peace treaty that included the full return of Syria’s Golan Heights and the occupied Palestinian territories, a key demand of Hafez Assad, National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski offered this analysis: “The Syrian economy is in grave difficulty, with inflation running at 25%. If the Saudis were to offer major financial backing in return for a Syrian-Egyptian reconciliation, President Hafez Assad might have to assent, no matter how much he dislikes the idea of being forced to negotiate with Israel.”

Thirty four years later, we are facing a similar situation. The west is sending Syria messages through their Gulf Arab allies that say “You are in real trouble, if you play by our rules … if you terminate relations with Iran and disarm Hezbollah … if you cooperate with us when we need you to, then we can help you stay in power and turn a blind eye like we do in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia”.

This is not the most difficult challenge that the regime had to face. In 1977 it lost its Egyptian peace partner after Sadat signed a separate peace treaty with Israel. At the same time the Syrian regime was in Lebanon busy fighting a coalition of Muslim forces as it tried to protect the much weaker Christians. This led to a coalition of neighboring Arab states aligned with the Untied States and determined to overthrow the Syrian regime by supporting (financially and with arms) the Muslism brotherhood that tried to use force to overthrow the regime. Then Israel invaded Lebanon and defeated the Syrian army stationed there. The Syrian economy was suffering from years of grave and multiple challenges. Yet by 1983, a top U.S. State Department official had to admit: “Hafez Assad is as strong, perhaps stronger, than ever.”

In 2005, after the Hariri assassination, the entire world was out for Syrian blood. The Syrian army left Lebanon, and the Americans, Europeans, and the Arabs all thought that Bashar was finished. They said he was stupid, he had no vision, he was not even half the man that his father was. It is instructive to consider the fact that Bashar did not feel pressured to properly comment on the Hariri assassination and Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon. Rafiq al-Hariri was killed on February 14, 2005. Do you know when Bashar gave his first full address about the issue? November. When pressured, the Syrian regime takes the long view. It is a mistake to assume they have no cards to play.

QN: Can they afford to not communicate for that long?

Otrakji: It seems they believe they can. But this total lack of communication is making them lose popularity among those who used to be independents, and it is making many regime supporters furious. They would like to hear a convincing account of what is happening, but the regime hates to communicate. As a result, many supporters are by now on the fence. They prefer to suspend the revolution and give the regime enough time to reform as promised. But every Friday is forcing them to go through the painful exercise of waiting until the end of the day to hear the bad news. Last Friday, tens died. The regime’s opponents imply they were all peaceful protesters. The regime implies they were all armed men who attacked or were attacked by the army or police. Most Syrians believe the truth is somewhere in between.

On the other hand, I realize that communicating might be near useless anyway. Both the regime supporters and the opposition are engaged in serious propaganda and the result is that the more technology tools we have today, the more confused and suspicious we are. On Twitter you have a massive amount of fabricated opposition claims of regime brutality (in addition to the true ones). On facebook you get to see video clips that every group shares (if they support their arguments) or rejects (if it is embarrassing). This report from Syrian television claims that tens of demonstrators were actually only celebrating rainfall. This clip of a funeral of those who died at the hands of security shows a flying coffin that seems to be empty. I like this clip. It is funny, and it demonstrates how anyone with a bit of technical background, can manipulate digital media with ease.

QN: Why did Egypt go more smoothly?

Otrakji: There is a major difference with Syria. Egypt does not have the complex sectarian and ethnic makeup that Syria does. We have Sunnis, Alawites, Christians, Druzes, Kurds, Armenians, and various other ethnic and confessional groups. We have tribalism. We share borders and complex political ties ad history with Lebanon and Iraq, two of the most volatile countries in the region. We are in a state of war with Israel, and we are a central member of the Iranian-Hizbullah-Hamas axis that puts us in the crosshairs of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. All Syrians are aware of their country’s vulnerability to instability, which is why the vast majority are genuinely supportive, or tolerant, of the current regime, even if they are restless waiting for more reforms. Syrians are risk averse; they’re just not willing to take the risk that Egypt took, because Egypt has much less potential for internal fragmentation. It is 90% Sunni Muslim, 100% Arab, no tribes, no Kurdish issue, has endless empty deserts separating it from its neighbors, and opted to sign a peace treaty with Israel ending its state of war.

QN: So what’s going to happen?

Otrakji: There is no way to know. Ultimately, it’s in the hands of the mostly non-sectarian risk-averse Syrian people, but it could still spin out of control if the current events are manipulated by groups that are trying to stir up sectarian conflict. If you read the older posts on the Syrian Revolution Facebook page (before they got a facelift and professional PR help), you wouldn’t believe how much religious language you find, and also how much deception there is. They were trying to whip up sectarian hysteria, to radicalize Syria’s Sunnis so as to bring down the regime. This is not what most Syrians want, but they have enough Syrians they can potentially influence.

QN: What is the likelihood, in your opinion, that the regime can be toppled by the current opposition, assuming that they can garner more support in the main cities?

Otrakji: The problem with this question – which everybody is asking – is that it fundamentally misunderstands the whole idea of “the Syrian regime”. What does this mean? What are you talking about when you say “the Syrian regime”?

QN: The Assad family, for starters. The major power-brokers and security chiefs. The corrupt oligarchs like Rami Makhlouf. Those are the opposition’s targets.

Otrakji: Corruption is indeed part of the reason many in “the regime” will resist those trying to force them out and I don’t think the Syrian people will rest anymore unless they are convinced that corruption will be curtailed.

But I think we need to look at Lebanon to understand what is really happening in Syria. After decades of Lebanon’s experience with democracy (flawed democracy) you still had Amin and Bashir Gemayel inheriting the leadership of their party and people from their father Pierre. Walid from Kamal Jumblatt, Saad from Rafiq Hariri… and the same applies to the Frangiehs, Chamouns or the Karamis.

You also have an understandings where a 5% segment of the population (the Druze minority) can sometimes have a veto power over potential decisions that the nation’s elected leaders might be contemplating.

When Druze leader Walid jumblatt switched to the March 8 side, providing them with a new majority and the right to name Lebanon’s next prime minister, Saad Hariri was furious. He warned that only the Sunnis can name the country’s (Sunni) prime minister, regardless of who has a parliamentarian majority.

Although there is no strong regime in power like the one in Syria, Lebanon still did not yet feel ready to take the risk to try to adopt one-man-one-vote democracy. And the same families that collectively held power over the different segments of society are still there decades later. Even Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah has been there for decades. Messing up with this imperfect system can open a can of worms.

Iraq’s current government coalition was mostly made in Damascus. Every candidate and major political or religious figure visited Damascus before an agreement was reached. No other capital in the region or outside received that many Iraqi VIP visitors. How did Syria get to be that influential in Iraq?

When Saddam Hussein oppressed Iraq’s Shia and Kurds, Syria protected their leaders in Damascus. Iraqi Prime ministers Maliki and Allawi, President Talibani, and many other Iraqis opposed to Saddam Hussein were living safely in Damascus for years before they went back to the new Iraq to lead it. At that time, all the other Arabs, not to mention the United States and Europe, were trying to be Saddam’s best friends.

Similarly, when Iran’s weight in post-Saddam Iraq tilted the country’s political balance in a way that marginalized Iraq’s Sunnis, Syria opposed its Iranian allies and decided to protect Iraq’s Sunnis, including the Baathist and Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq.

Lebanon’s majority coalition is made of Christians, Shia, Druze and Sunnis … all of them have one thing in common; They are Syria’s allies. Similarly, Lebanon’s opposition is made of a similarly colorful group that also has one thing in common … all are opponents of Syria. When Druze leader switched from being an opponent of Syria to a friend of Syria, the majority and opposition in Lebanon exchanged hats.

The Syrian regime, and only the Syrian regime, REALLY know how the Levant and Mesopotamia work. Try to let the Saudis decide and you will end up with one disaster after the other. Remember Saud Al-faisal‘s brilliant plan to send an Arab army to fight Hezbollah in Lebanon?

The Alawites, and to a lesser degree the other minorities in Syria, will not accept the current system to be swept away overnight and without reforms that guarantee minority safety and rights. You have to understand that most Alawites view Syria in much the same way that the Jews view Israel, the Kurds view Kurdistan, the Maronites in Lebanon, etc. This is the one country in the world where they can dictate their own affairs and don’t have to worry about being repressed as a minority. They are not going to accept that this reality changes overnight. If democracy is to come to Syria, it needs to happen gradually and in a region that is not boiling in sectarian anger. Most Syrians understand this. But many, understandably, do not.

QN: What is your opinion of Turkey’s alleged concerns over the Syrian government’s crackdown? Do you think that this valuable alliance could be in jeopardy if the violence continues and refugees start fleeing to Turkey?

Otrakji: If Syria collapses, this could lead to a potential disaster for everyone in its vicinity: Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, and yes, even Turkey. The Turks have no desire to see Syria’s Kurds beginning to demand their own statelet, as this will impact Turkey’s Kurdish question in a major way. And Turkey surely would not want to see Sunnis and Alawites fighting each other just south of its border. These things can be contagious to Turkey’s own Sunni/Alawite population.

The main players in the region have no interest, at the end of the day, in trying to destabilize Assad. Even if they hate to admit it, they know that Syria’s regime plays a stabilizing role across the region. Rami Khouri agrees that we can expect major problems across the region if Syria is shaken. I think Syria has influence as far as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iran, Bahrain and … everywhere. In that sense, Syria is really not Egypt or Tunis.

QN: What’s the best case scenario for Syria, in your opinion?

Otrakji: I can’t discuss Syria without also discussing the Middle East. Here is the only thing that will work:

For now, demonstrations must stop, the President must speak to the nation to reassure everyone that he is indeed committed to serious and accelerated reforms that will please most Syrians. Press freedom law, political parties law, decentralization law (more power to the provinces) and gradually (within a year?) undoing the Ba’ath party’s monopoly on power.

The minorities in power in Syria need to start thinking of a five year plan to move to a democratic system. A Senate can help protect minority rights. Maintaining control of the army, like the case in Turkey, can provide another way to reassure the minorities. But otherwise, free elections that might bring anyone to power should be expected… after peace with Israel (please bear with me, I’ll explain)

“The International community” must help Israel and the Arabs reach comprehensive peace in the Middle East. The status quo is not sustainable. A majority of Egyptians want to scrap the peace treaty with Israel. Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states are not going to remain stable forever. Iran and Saudi Arabia are probably going to consider different ways to escalate their cold war. Soon, a third intifada might start in the Palestinian territories. There is one way to start undoing all the pressure, a comprehensive peace treaty that is based on the return to the 1967 borders.

Since 1977 the US and Europe have been trying to weaken or destabilize Syria. This will destabilize the whole Middle East like it did each time they tried in the past. In Washington DC there is a group of legacy Middle East experts who tried, unsuccessfully, over the past years or decades, to weaken and isolate Syria. Dennis Ross, Elliott Abrams, Lee Smith, Jeff Feltman, and many others who passed away. For them, it is a personal battle that they never won. But they succeeded at least in ensuring that Syria never received a visit from an American secretary of State since 2003. No matter who is the President of the Untied States, one of the long term enemies of Syria makes it inside the new administration to help ensure nothing constructive comes out.

If President Obama is serious about progress in the Middle East, he has to personally take charge of relations with Syria. Leave the Syria “experts” out of it. You cannot be a democracy within the borders of the United States but a bully in the way you deal with smaller states. You know that when Syria was considered an ally of the Soviet Union, the Russians allowed Hafez Assad the liberty to meet with American Presidents. They did not punish him for that. The same applies to Iranian allies of Syria. They never complained when President Bashar Assad met with American officials or when Syrian experts were discussing peace with Israelis in Turkey. The US should learn from Iran and the former Soviet Union how is it possible to be a friend of Syria without dictating your terms on your weaker friend.

Religion and politics make an explosive mix. Most of the region’s problems come from Saudi Arabia (Sunni Islam’s Kingdom), Iran (Shia Islam’s kingdom) Israel (the Jewish state) and soon from America’s Zionist Christians. If you want Syrian minorities to be less fearful of full democracy get the Salafists off their back first. This one is calling for sacrificing one third of Syria’s population to get rid of the infidels, while the other one is about to explode if he does not see the minorities out of power in Syria immediately. In Egypt, top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood are saying their real goal is “to rule the world!”. Salafists in Egypt are already threatening to enter Christian monasteries and to take over Sufi mosques. Even in Tunisia, Jordan and Northern Lebanon, Salafists are increasingly trying to play a big role.

In five years, everything can be resolved. But we have to retire the “moral clarity” mentality that used to consider Hosni Mubarak a part of the “International community” simply because he was a US puppet. Many of the heroes and prophets of moral clarity worked for Qaddafi when he paid the right price. Some of them worked for the Bush Sr. administration when a decision was made to kill tens of thousands of young Iraqi soldiers after they surrendered. That same 1991 war was made possible after many, including the President, lied to the American people to help them support that initially unpopular war. Don’t try again to spend 500 million dollars to manipulate the Lebanese people against Hezbollah before they go to vote. When you do that, the Syrian regime will be more assured that opening up its political system will lead to American (and Saudi) manipulation… until both countries accept to become genuine friends of Syria. It is really wrong for the Obama administration to send an ambassador to Damascus while trying to finance those who are trying to overthrow the regime then to complain that engagement with Damascus is not working too well.

The United States must decide between solving the problems of the region, or letting it explode. Forget what your Syria experts say; Syria is where you need to start. This regime has 40 years of intensive and extensive experience in this region. Make use of it, THEN talk to the regime about what it takes to retire from power while the region is at peace.

Am I confident any of that will take place? … The regime’s reforms yes, the rest no. It is hard not to be pessimistic about what the region will go through this year.

Discussion

727 thoughts on “Talking about a Revolution: An Interview with Camille Otrakji”

That’s long winded answers to simple questions lol…I think I shall try to address it a morsel at a time.

Let’s start”…Despite weekly calls from opposition figures for millions to demonstrate, based on the numbers of people we have seen in the streets of Syria thus far, it is clear that less than 1.0% of the country (about 150,000 Syrians) has joined the protests. This is not Egypt or Yemen, where you had hundreds of thousands or even millions of people protesting every day…”

Now really? Mr.Otrakji fails to mention the shabi7a and the mukhabarati intimidation and killings of their own people. He fails to mention that neither Egypt or Tunisia have had the repressive bloody mukhabarat…or Hama with 20,000 dead.
Mr. Otrakji forgets that the tanks are pounding their own people and gunning down protesters at funerals. Mr. Otrakji forgets to mention that all media has been tossed out of Syria. If things were as small then why would not Mr. assad allow free access to media and let the protests run its course.?

Off course the stupid suggestion of percentages that the Syrian apologists are so fond of. remember when a million and over people went to the streets in Lebanon? They said it does not represent all of Lebanese? Someone should remind Mr. Otrakji that Egypt has close to 80 million residents and maybe 300,000 were protesting most of the time…without machine guns and tanks shooting at the people..I guess if 800,000 people protested in Egypt; which is 1% without the killing machine of Bashar…Then in his warped calculations Mr. Otrakji should know that 1% of Syrians KICK his warped ass!!

Posted by danny | May 2, 2011, 10:37 am
Mr. Otrakji is so comical. He wants the western media to report the pro regime demonstrations while neglecting to say that Syria has banned and kicked out all foreign media. He talks about men only demonstrating in Syria (Lying off course) without mentioning that any MAN will leave his kids and women at home to spare them being shot at by the Syrian mukhabarati goons. He off course forgets the women of Banias and Damascus among others who were forcefully removed by the security personnel.
He insinuates that the demonstrators are armed in Syria while failing to provide one link or tape demonstrating that. Mr. Otrakji is spinning a yarn…

Posted by danny | May 2, 2011, 10:58 am
What’s the use?
Let’s summarize:
1) Assad will reform “soon”
2) Syria understands the middle east best
3) The real problems are the religious states, KSA, Israel and Iran
4) Peace with Israel will somehow solve the Salafi problem and will lead to democracy

Since non of these points are true any discussion is a waste of time. This is sad because there is a serious discussion to be had. Unfortunately, the well intentioned minorities in Syria cannot say straightforwardly what they think: Democratic reforms in Syria will lead to minorities suffering because Syrian society is not tolerant of minorities, therefore we prefer the Assad regime with all its warts. Yes, that message is hidden somewhere in the verbiage, but as long as you don’t admit that this the main issue, and not Israel, Iran, peace, the US etc. the discussion is a waste of time.

Posted by AIG | May 2, 2011, 11:14 am
Wishful thinking. The Syrian Alawite Dictatorship is not reformable, come hell or high water. That’s fallacy number one of Mr. Otrakji.
Comprehensive peace before any elections in Syria is another fallacy and false premise, because there is no way on earth that Israel’s war criminals are going to give up the Golan and its water, not now, not in five years, not ever.
The other fallacy is about the “pro-Assad” demonstrators: they are the a pure fabrication of Syria’s Mukhabarat, lock stock and barrel. The most laughable ones are taking place in Lebanon, which proves that Syria’s despotic Mukhabarat are still gangrening Lebanon and that the infamous White House Murder INC, with Asef Shawkat in the Levant is still a potent force…

Posted by HK | May 2, 2011, 11:23 am
I must concur.

A total waste of time.

Such talk is suitable for Syriacomment where one can conduct a ‘lively’ monologue with like minded regime apologists and may I say as of recently regime bigots.

Posted by iceman | May 2, 2011, 11:26 am
AIG:

To be fair to the chap, he can’t be any more transparent than he has been. I think he was quite blunt on the minority question.

What I don’t understand is why he believes the problem will go away in 5 years. It seems so random a point to make. If the Assad’s didn’t put a system in place when they had full control where the minorities would better trust the majority, why believe another 5 years would change things.

The second aspect of the problem is that Syria stoked those sectarian questions to its strategic advantage for many years. That hardly is the type of recipe it should have followed if it had the best interests of minorities at heart.

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 11:32 am
Many sane participants on SC argued endlessly with the regime dumbs who mostly as AIG pointed out come from minorities and proved to them with statistics and figures that minorities in Syria as a whole in fact suffered under the Assads and many chose to immigrate. It is the same problem that plagued Lebanon and of course Iraq. There are far less Christians, for example, on percentage basis in Syria today than 40 years ago. Go back to SC archives and you will numerous comments proving that.

The real problem is the remaining minorities are benefiting disproportionately from the regime. So the real incentive for being apologist is nothing but nepotism and favouritism. This is what stability means to these hypocrites.

But I have a question to Mr. Otrakji which concerns Lebanese more than Syrians. When all said and done and the regime falls do you think there is a possibility that Bashar, Maher, Assef, Rustom and perhaps Bushra will be handcuffed and shipped over to Beirut for execution by a firing squad in front of the St. George? We do not want all the billions that these thieves stole from the Syrian people. Syria can keep the money. Just give us the criminal thugs.

Posted by iceman | May 2, 2011, 11:52 am
Missing ‘find’ somewhere in that comment…

Posted by iceman | May 2, 2011, 11:53 am
Mr. Otrakji,

I want Bashar Assad, Maher Assad, Asef Shawkat, Ghazi Kanaan’s body exhumed to be sent also for desecration purposes…, Rustom Ghazali, and Bushra Assad to be handcuffed and shipped over to Lebanon for execution by a firing squad in Hazmieh, together with Jamil Al-Sayyed, Raymond Azar, Michel Suleiman, Emile Lahood, Amine Gemayel, Ziad Abdel-Nour, Naji N. Najjar, and Elias Murr?
The rest of the Ziocon crew belonging to the Infamous White House Murder INC, remain at large in USA and Israhell, and will remain Wanted for ever.

Thanks

Posted by HK | May 2, 2011, 12:06 pm
There is so much to say in one way, and so little in another. I think i am going to wait to really comment in full. But I just want to put out there right away the most shocking point of all.

I agree with AIG.

i know. It is really hard to fathom.

But – amidst so much verbiage coming from Camille that displays his vast knowledge of “the facts”… as he has collected them – the KEY point is really this – that the minorities in Syria do not trust the majority and are willing to justify their own power, advantage, repression, aggression… whatever level is required in order not to be forced to let that majority rule – or even have equal rights!…
All the rest seems like excuses and explanations for keeping the status quo.
and… he sets up impossible conditions to be met BEFORE any challenge to this power structure can be made…
In addition to retrieving the broomstick of the wicked witch of the west, we have to “get the salafists off” their back…. and make a comprehensive peace agreement between the entire middle east countries and Israel!!!! That’s it? really….
No doubt, the fear is there. but in short, it is not going to ever be resolved by delaying its being seriously addressed and suppressing the undercurrents and using the fear of it to justify any kind of minority domination and state violence.

Posted by Zenobia | May 2, 2011, 12:07 pm
Let’s say there were half a million Egyptians in the protests — that would be 0.6 percent of the Egyptian population.

If 150,000 Syrians have gone down in the streets, that would make them 0.7 percent of the population, i.e. more representative of the Syrian population than Egyptian protesters.

Posted by sean | May 2, 2011, 12:16 pm
The real problem is the remaining minorities are benefiting disproportionately from the regime. So the real incentive for being apologist is nothing but nepotism and favouritism. This is what stability means to these hypocrites.

Interesting take. Perhaps if one keeps believing that it will soften the blow when the “remaining, hyprocritical” minorities get mowed down.

What is curious though is the observation that much of the “minorities” have already immigrated out.

Can’t be any more true. Except it’s curious why some of those emigrants, like Otrakji continue to be regime apologists from places afar, like Montreal.

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 12:20 pm
Alex: It’s interesting to me that your analysis can rest simultaneously on contradictory visions of the Syrian people. On the one hand, they are easily manipulable religious zealots who would love nothing more than to slaughter the minorities, making them incapable of democracy.

On the other hand, there is this optimism that without all of the meddling hands (coming from every direction) with their nefarious plans to destroy Syria, the Syrian people are totally capable of living in a democratic country in which the regime reforms itself (after 41 years plus 5) and sectarianism is no longer a concern.

In addition to being mutually exclusive, both of these visions seem overly simplistic to me.

Posted by sean | May 2, 2011, 12:26 pm
And the hits keep coming… 🙂

Alex tells me that he will respond soon enough.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | May 2, 2011, 12:35 pm
12,

It is a well known fact that Asef Shawkat and his military intelligence goons, as well as Syria’s moukhabarat are very very good at penetrating the opposition in Syria and abroad. They bloat and brag about it when they meet foreign intelligence/diplomats, etc and sometimes even publicly. I must admit that this is very true, it’s Syria’s best trading currency with other countries’ services and they have huge archives…
Among those archives are what they stole from our ministry of defense in 1990.
Now I am not saying that Mr. Otrakji is one of them, I don’t know him, but I know of others in Europe, USA, Egypt and the GCC.

Posted by HK | May 2, 2011, 12:35 pm
is Otrakji Alex?

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 12:36 pm
yes, Otrakji is Alex.

i think the hits are going to keep coming…. sorry

Posted by Zenobia | May 2, 2011, 12:40 pm
All in all a total waste of ink ans space ya QN. Here is a fellow who is trying to spin without thinking. Garbage in garbage out! Maybe Mr. Otrakji can send a copy of his Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Freedom & Rights to his friends the Assads and tell them that the best protection of minorities is a free democratic society whereas each person will vote based on the political ideology or merits of a candidate. The “expired” excuse that a dictatorship is best suited for a multiethnic and multi-religious society…is just that EXPIRED!
Please let us know Mr. Otrakji; how on earth have you been able to live in Canada with all Syrian emigres from all different sects?

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/

Posted by danny | May 2, 2011, 12:45 pm
The real issue here is Iran which Camille has alluded to in this insightful article.It is all about Iran’s nuclear capability and what it will do in the region.Abandon purchase of conventional weapons and go for the ultimate deterrent.Remember close to a trillion dollars of arms purchases conducted since 1990 most of them in the last 10 years with oil prices being amnipulated by the large financial institutions in the USA,Britain and Europe.Effectively a recycling of dollars from middle class families to rich oilgrachs in the West and the Middle East

Posted by matrixloaded | May 2, 2011, 12:46 pm
nooo it is REALLY worth the ink space. Sarcasm in moderation please. I don’t think Camille has any faith in Syrians to work out these prejudices without a gun to their head.

Posted by Zenobia | May 2, 2011, 12:49 pm
Guys and Zenobia (sorry in advance for gender mistakes on my part),

I suggest that we assume for the sake of discussion that Alex is a well intentioned person that gets no specific benefit from Assad staying in power expect that the Christians in Syria are safe. On most days I actually believe that. In this way we can move the discussion a little forward. As a Jew in Israel I understand why the Christian community in Syria may not want to take risks with its security. Even if the probability of what happened in Iraq happening in Syria is only 10%, should the community be asked to take such a risk? How do we mitigate this risk? What can the international community really do? The Arabs?

What I have been telling Alex via SC for many years is that the strategy of the minorities and the Syrian regime is a very short term one because it only raises the chances of an Iraq style catastrophe happening. But I guess they cannot figure an alternative one. At this point they cannot even accept gradual reforms (unless of course some miracles happen as Zenobia pointed out). If Assad does not wake up fast, this will become a Greek Tragedy with the sad ending preordained.

Posted by AIG | May 2, 2011, 12:57 pm
Alright, don’t believe the regime apologist. Here is something similar from the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/unrest-in-syria-threatens-regional-stability/2011/05/01/AF3OQtUF_story.html

I’ll answer in more detail later today. For now

1) I did not say Syrian minorities should fear the Sunni majority in Syria. I said that they should fear the extremist minority within a mostly wonderful Sunni majority. even if 10% of Sunnis are extreme and non tolerant, that would be over 2 million to worry about.

I am more worried about the Saudis. If you checked the links I provided you would realize that Hillary Clinton is also very worried that the Saudis are the top supporters of religious extremists. Again, you are focusing on the messenger and not the message.

2) 150,000 demonstrated in Syria in six weeks …. in Egypt on an average day you had half a million demonstrating (2 millions if you believed Aljazeera’s drama news). In Syria on an average day, you had maybe 2000 demonstrating spread across many cities. Daraa and Banias (and Homs too) are two exceptions, the rest of the country barely moved. Again, on an average day 2000 demonstrating in Syria, half a million in Egypt (Tahrir, Alexandria, Suez, ..etc)

3) The millions who demonstrated to support Assad on one day were not forced to go dance and sing there (in Aleppo, Homs, Damascus, Tartous, Hassakeh…). If you really believe the moukhabarat can these days convince millions to do that then nothing logical will convince you.

4) I was very clear that minorities can not remain in power for more than a few more years. It is not fair and it is not sustainable. But you don’t wash your car during a thunderstorm… If you think that my “condition” of settling the Middle East conflict is an excuse to remain in power, it is your own way of reading something I know I do not favor.

This applies to Lebanon too. One-man-one-vote democracy might bring a Shia president to replace the current Maronite one.

I was suggesting starting to find ways (adding a Senate for example) minorities and secular Syrians and Lebanese will feel comfortable accepting one-man-one-vote democracy in five years max.

5) While some of you are still dreaming of revenge and violence so that you will feel good, I want to remind you that Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel are all here to stay, but there is no place for all of them if there is no comprehensive solution in the region. Lebanon is the region’s favorite playing ground.

While all you want to read is “regime apologist”, I am saying: The region is about to explode. If you prefer to sit and watch. do that.

Posted by Alex | May 2, 2011, 1:05 pm
Mr. Otrakji has taken a bold and courageous position, even for someone living as far -not so far- as Montreal. This being said, I guess he is above 50 years old, representing the old levantine christian bourgeoisie who have a visceral fear of sunni majorities which makes him take this awkward position.

Although I strongly disagree with this group, which endlessly defended and continues to defend the position of the cruel regime in Syria under Hafez and Bashar to justify whatever actions in Lebanon and now in Syria proper, one must agree with one thing: they are right in distrusting the idea of a Sunni majority. Sunnis have failed since the Nahda early last century to come up with a vision and a working model for any middle eastern society that is secular enough to be tolerant to minorities or dissenting views, forward looking, respectful of the rights of all its citizens and economically viable. We only have bad models of Sunni rule to refer to.

The thing is that the likes of Assads, Mubaraks, Ben Alis, Gaddafis, and their bouta is that they have made things worse. Assad should find no one else to blame than his dad, himself and his corrupt and cruel family and acolyte dictactors, for the emergence of militant sunni Islam, and now the mistrust and fear that minorities in Syria have of the Brotherhoods taking over. This fear is real. But defending the Assad regime as the only safeguard against that is unjust, cruel, and contrary to the march of history and universal values. What Mr. Otrakji fails to mention in his comment – or more likely overlooking- is that whatever the source of the unrest, Assad is showing clearly once again that the Syrian regime is made of thugs and murderers, that respond to legitimate protest with immeasurable violence, abductions, torture, and killings. Those suffering from this violence Mr. Otrakji are not agents only of a foreign conspiracy but also young, educated, freedom lovers that we all of us know individually.

We are in a dead-end Mr Otrakji. We have to recognise that. But to continue to defend such regimes is morally unacceptable, under any circumstance. We will have to accept that we need to go to the frontline again and build a new Middle East, whether fighting despots or religious biggots. We must all participate in whatever means life has given us in building societies that correspond to our ideals and stop defending the indefensible. We are at a point where dignity, freedom and positive participation in humanity have more value than obsolete models of murder and corruption.

Posted by freddyatali | May 2, 2011, 1:07 pm
lets include the end of all Wars, the return of Christ, the Mahdi and Elvis as logical and just conditions before we can ask the Assad regime to step away.

Posted by V | May 2, 2011, 1:10 pm
Alex said:”While all you want to read is “regime apologist”, I am saying: The region is about to explode. If you prefer to sit and watch. do that.”

Now that is the joke of the century!! Is that what Bashar told Ban Ki Moon when discussing Lebanon? Nothing will explode except of course your Assads and all people names: Bushra, asef, rustom etc..etc… and their bank accounts. Somewhere in Toronto, Canada said: The gravy train is over…

Alex, Syria will evolve just like any other society. Time for you to do better math then what you did above(regarding the protests). I am sure I can speak for a few when we say: We are not impressed.

Posted by danny | May 2, 2011, 1:15 pm
V,

Elvis is alive…never left the building. 😀

Posted by danny | May 2, 2011, 1:17 pm
Propaganda conspiracies roaming Syria as they once did in Lebanon in 1975.

So “All what happened in Tunis, Egypt, Yemen, Libya is Israeli and American funded!”

Blaming Israel, and probably giving it too much credit is the easiest way out, and a solution to all our uncertainties.

I feel Qatar and Turkey has more influence today in the Arab world than America.

On another note… and I feel I should express this harshly, If ever the Syrian people wanted freedom and liberty and a chance to vote for a representative, how would it look like in your opinion? On the ground today, in the Syria we know??
ein Mr. Otrakji?

Posted by Marcus | May 2, 2011, 1:18 pm
Alex,

Just 1 question…

Why the number 5?

Why do you believe that in 5 years all can be well?

In 5 years won’t there still be a 10 pct troublesome minority within the Sunni majority?

And isn’t this majority growing, hence making the problem even more acute in 5 years?

Aren’t you simply delaying the inevitable? Or is your hope that in those 5 years, the minorities would have had time to pack and leave?

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 1:24 pm
Danny,

I did not expect to impress you or anyone who hates the Syrian regime. And I did not choose to write my opinion on Syria Comment (I moderate that blog and write there often) where I can have many supporters.

I can tell when communicating is useless. Elias wanted my (controversial) opinion and I am stating it in detail for others, who are not as emotionally loaded as many of you here are.

Rami Khouri and the Washington Post opinion piece today are saying the same thing I said.

Many experienced journalists contacted me and they see the big picture.

AIG,

Jews in Israel, Christians in Syria and Lebanon, and other minorities in the Middle East will survive after the conflict is resolved … Iran will have no role to play in supporting resistance, the President of Lebanon will be a Shia Muslim, the President of Syria will be a Sunni Muslim … and Israel will be a cousin, and not an enemy. Salafists will not find it easy to attract young Arabs to their conflict driven mentality.

It is the one and only option that has a real chance.

Posted by Alex | May 2, 2011, 1:30 pm
Could I echo AIG’s sentiments by calling for a reasonable debate? Name calling and personal insults are for little children.

Camille has taken the trouble to respond in great detail to my questions. If you disagree with him, then make an argument.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | May 2, 2011, 1:31 pm
Gabriel,

Just an estimate. Could be 3 years … depending how much or how little resistance there is to change. It gives Syria and Lebanon time to setup institutions and constitutional changes that protect the minorities no matter who wins democratic elections.

And it assumes that within that time the US will finally realize that the only way out is a comprehensive solution to the conflict in he Middle East.

There will be tremendous pressure on Saudi Arabia to deal with its extremists. There will be a cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. For now they will escalate before they realize that neither one can win. That takes time until they, and others, realize that nothing will be settled by force.

That’s why the need for a few years. If the US is on board, it could be three, not five.

Posted by Alex | May 2, 2011, 1:36 pm
I don’t mind one man one vote NOW, no matter who wins in Lebanon, as long as we have a modern constitution with equality for all under the law of the land. In five years, if the Ziocons continue on that path with Obushma re-elected for a second term and the extreme right-wing government of Israel still in place, and counter-revolutionary tactics continue unabated in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, KSA etc, you can kiss the region good-bye. It will be a thousand Tribes With Flags from Darfur to MENA to Quetta and beyond.

Posted by HK | May 2, 2011, 1:37 pm
Excellent thoughts from Mr Otrakji…he did give an accurate analysis for the situation in Syria…Iceman… just shut up

Posted by Jihad | May 2, 2011, 1:39 pm
“…Lebanon is the region’s favorite playing ground.

While all you want to read is “regime apologist”, I am saying: The region is about to explode. If you prefer to sit and watch. do that…

Here comes AP’s sidekick quarterback.

A double threat taken from the Master’s latest ‘npr’ talk show

O yeah!!! And, I just looked in my crystal ball. Tomorrow is the long awaited BIG DOOMSDAY, the real ONE. All you sinners repent before sunset.

Posted by iceman | May 2, 2011, 1:42 pm
Alex,

You can bring in two op-eds and we will have HK heap a dozen on you.

The question is not matter of impressing (please don’t play with words)but rather impressing with accuracy and common sense.

I would love to have any smart person of any sect being a Lebanese president or whatever. the problem is similar is Syria as in Lebanon. We have one armed militia (HA) and you have another (Maher’s thugs) trying to influence events on the ground. Why not invite people (intellectuals, leaders..) from different groups and prepare a road map. Instead HR activists are being jailed and others kidnapped in Lebanon by assad’s proxies. Dumping old rhetoric and expecting a soft ride is ridiculous.

Why my suggested option would not be acceptable??

Posted by danny | May 2, 2011, 1:44 pm
Alex:

My only retort is that Bashar has been in power for 10 years, and people had held out hope for him being a reformist.

Has he done anything in those 10 years to suggest a move towards such institutions?

And if not, why has it taken this type of shakeup to even force such a discussion?

While I don’t disagree that the transition may likely be quite awful, I am not at all convinced by the argument that given more time, the situation would be different, especially (and here I agree with you) given that KSA and Iran and Israel will remain as regional players continuing with their “cold war”. The region, given current trends, is more likely to radicalize than liberalize. And about the only thing I can think of that would reverse this trend is this bug called Democracy, where nations and people who elect their leaders are held accountable.

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 1:53 pm
(Just as an aside… Alex:)

I am not sure who is wagging whose tail. Saudi Arabia, or the US.

I don’t think the Saudis are in a hurry to curb their extremists anyday soon. Nor do I think they will be answering to the US to do so.

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 1:58 pm
Alex,

Solving the Israeli-Arab conflict will solve nothing. In fact, it will make it easier for Iran to interfere. Israel’s position is that 0 Palestinians can return to Israel. Let’s say that the compromise will be 100,000 over 10 years. That still leaves 4 million Palestinians that would believe that the peace treaty is not just and would be happy to undermine the Palestinian state with the help of Iran. After a peace treaty Iran will feel more isolated and try to find ways to destabilize it. And how will peace stop the Saudis from exporting Wahabism? The Wahabis do not need Israel to hate Shia’s.

Furthermore, peace will not create jobs or solve the class problems. What Arabs want is “justice” not peace. And they want “justice” to begin at home.

Do you really believe peace will solve your problems? Since it is not going to happen in the next 5 years, why is it even relevant for the discussion?

Posted by AIG | May 2, 2011, 1:59 pm
Couldn’t have said it better than freddyatali in # 23 the theory of the devil we know is no longer viable for the future of the region.
Even if we have to go thru more wars and chaos due to the Islamists taking over it’s a fight we have to fight and the Assad and his likes of the Arab dictatorial regimes must go regardless.

Posted by V | May 2, 2011, 2:01 pm
Excellent article, if anyone is really interested in learning something.

Most commentators here, as a number of Syrian “revolutionists” (all living outside Syria), are bolted and locked out of the rational discussion domain. For whatever reasons, they just want one thing: to see the Syrian regime toppled. Everything else is a “waste of time” to them.

It’s not going to happen.

No amount of wishful thinking, hate Fatwas, hysterical TV wars, or Facebook Voodoo is going to make that happen, at least not in the short run. You can try to see the facts Alex is presenting, or you can painfully hit the wall eventually.

This is really incredible. I have been talking to friends who are now fixated on seeing the regime disappear. Once they have that idea implanted, they enter a state of mind that totally refuses to see anything that disagrees with that mindset, and just keep propping up their self-feeding hysteria.

I believe the manipulators of this show know well that it’s not going to topple the regime. They still go through the moves because it will weaken Syria, even if temporarily. Meanwhile, innocent bystanders, army personnel, as well as crazed and armed revolutionists are dying every day. They could care less.

Alex has put together an article with enough logic and supporting material to encourage anyone who’s interested in building a better model of “the truth” to at least consider his views. Unfortunately, I’ve met and talked to many people who just REFUSE to even look.

To those I say” “knock yourselves out”.

Was it a waste of time? I believe not. There is another point of view, other than that being megaphones by Al-Jazeera et al. Al Jazeera goes through the yearly budget of Syrian TV in two days, so we can’t match that fire power hour per hour. Do we have to? No! There are ways for asymmetrical media warfare as well.

They are trying everything in Syria, including emptying the bakeries of bread to create an artificial sense of chaos and a war-like emergency. A friend of mine told me that the motto there is that a bullet costs 50 liras, while a sack of bread costs 15 liras. It’s a cheaper weapon to use to bring the regime down. It’s not working.

I worry about one thing, and that is if the regime does not end up offering meaningful and genuine reforms (as defined and accepted by most Syrians living in the country). If people perceive the changes made as cosmetic and non-genuine, then this could mean trouble for them. If I were betting, I’d place my bets on the reasoning that says they’re are smarter, braver, and more genuine than not to know that.

Posted by Averroes | May 2, 2011, 2:10 pm
I agree 100% with Mr. Otrakji. He has a knowledge of Syria and the region that is not matched by anyone else. I am optimistic about the survival of Bashar El Assad as president in the short and middle term given that he is serious about reforms but I am pessimistic about a comprehensive ME peace plan like the one defended by Mr. Otrakji.
The reason for my pessimism is that to put this plan in place you have to have a vision for the whole region. Mr. Otrakji seems to have this vision but it has been lacking in the US and the EU leaderships for some time now. Their foreign policy in the ME is short sighted, contradictory in its goals, and chaotic (read the Wikileaks cables…)

Posted by Sophia | May 2, 2011, 2:12 pm
Fouad Ajami ‘blames’ Madeline Albright for the ‘conspiracy’ now ‘played’ against Assad, because she praised him 10 years ago for being internet savvy. He probably would throw away his iPod with all its dowloaded music if given the chance to go back to that point in his life.

But how accurate is Ajami’s observation: “It is unlikely that the Gadhafis and Mubaraks and the ruler of Yemen could have entertained thoughts of succession for their sons had they not seen the ease with which Syria became that odd creature—a republican monarchy.”?

By FOUAD AJAMI
It was inevitable that the caravan of Arab freedom would make its appearance in Syria. It was there, three decades ago, that official terror hatched a monstrous state—and where practically everything Arabs would come to see in their politics in future decades was foreshadowed.

Hama was one of the principal cities of the Syrian plains. With a history of tumult and disputation, this Muslim Sunni stronghold rose against the military rule of Hafez Assad in 1982. The regime was at stake, and the drab, merciless ruler at its helm fought back and threw everything he had into the fight.

A good deal of the center of the inner city was demolished, no quarter was given. There are estimates that 20,000 people were killed.

After Hama, Hafez Assad would rule uncontested for two more decades. Prior to his ascendancy, 14 rulers came and went in a quarter-century. Many perished in prison or exile or fell to assassins. Not so with that man of stealth. He died in 2000, and in a most astonishing twist, he bequeathed power to his son Bashar, a young man not yet 35 years of age and an ophthalmologist at that.

By then Syrians had fled into the privacy of their homes, eager to escape the ruler’s whip and gaze. Rule became a matter of the barracks, the ruling caste hunkered down, and the once-feisty republic become a dynastic possession. Assad senior had come from crushing rural poverty, but the House of Assad became a huge financial and criminal enterprise.

Around Bashar Assad were siblings, cruel and entitled. At the commanding heights of the economy were the Assad in-laws, choking off the life of commerce, reducing the trading families of yesteryear to marginality and dependence. And there was the great sectarian truth of this country: The Alawis, a mountainous community of Shiite schismatics, for centuries cut off from wealth and power, comprising somewhere between 10% and 12% of the population, had hoarded for themselves supreme political power. The intelligence barons were drawn from the Alawis, as were the elite brigades entrusted with the defense of the regime.

For the rulers, this sectarian truth was a great taboo, for Damascus had historically been a great city of Sunni urban Islam. That chasm between state and society, between ruler and ruled, that we can see in practically all Arab lands under rebellion was most stark in Syria. It is unlikely that the Gadhafis and Mubaraks and the ruler of Yemen could have entertained thoughts of succession for their sons had they not seen the ease with which Syria became that odd creature—a republican monarchy.

When the Arab revolutions hit Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, Bashar Assad claimed that his country would be bypassed because it was the quintessential “frontline” state in the Arab confrontation with Israel. Let them eat anti-Zionism, the regime had long thought of its subjects. Tell them that their desire for freedom and bread and opportunities, their taste for the new world beyond the walls of the big Assad prison, would have to wait until the Syrian banners are raised over the Golan Heights.

But the Syrians who conquered fear and doubt, who were willing to put the searing memory of Hama behind them, were reading from a new script. Bashar could neither hear, nor fully understand, this rebellion.

He sacked a subservient cabinet and replaced it with an equally servile one. He would end the state of emergency, he promised—though a state of emergency that lasts nearly half-a-century is a way of life.

But a new country is emerging from hibernation. When the Assads came into their dominion nearly 40 years ago, Syria was a largely rural society with six million people. The country has been remade: It has been urbanized. Some 15 million people have known no other rule than that of the Assads and their feared mukhabarat, the secret police. From smaller provincial towns, protests spread to the principal cities. The cult of the ruler—and hovering over him the gaze of his dead father—had cracked.

In the regime’s arsenal, there is the ultimate threat that this upheaval would become a sectarian war between the Alawites and the Sunni majority. Syria is riven by sectarian differences—there are substantial Druze and Kurdish and Christian communities—and in the playbook of the regime those communities would be enlisted to keep the vast Sunni majority at bay. This is the true meaning of the refrain by Bashar and his loyalists that Syria is not Egypt or Tunisia—that it would be shades of Libya and worse.

Terrorism has always been part of the Assad regime’s arsenal. It killed and conquered its way into Lebanon over three decades starting in the late 1970s. It fought and bloodied American purposes in Iraq by facilitating the entry of jihadists who came to war against the Americans and the Shiites. And in the standoff between the Persian theocracy and its rivals in the region, the Syrians had long cast their fate with the Iranians.

Under Bashar, the Syrians slipped into a relationship of some subservience to the Iranians—yet other nations were always sure that Syria could be “peeled off” from Iran, that a bargain with Damascus was always a day, or a diplomatic mission, away. It had worked this way for Assad senior, as American statesmen including Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were confident that they could bring that man, at once an arsonist and a fireman in his region, into the fold.

The son learned the father’s tricks. There is a litter of promises, predictions by outsiders that Bashar Assad is, at heart, a reformer. In 2000, our emissary to his father’s funeral and to his own inauguration, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, praised him in such terms. He was part of the Internet generation, she said.

But Bashar is both this system’s jailer and its captive. The years he spent in London, the polish of his foreign education, are on the margin of things. He and the clans—and the intelligence warlords and business/extortion syndicates around him—know no other system, no other way.

“We need our second independence in Syria,” an astute dissident, Radwan Ziadeh, recently observed. “The first was the freedom from the French and the second will be from the Assad dynasty.” Would that the second push for freedom be as easy and bloodless as the first.

Mr. Ajami is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is co-chair of the Hoover Working Group on Islamism and the International Order.

Posted by iceman | May 2, 2011, 2:14 pm
1) The region is already exploding. Not in the way you meant, though.

2) I wash my car when ever I feel too uncomfortable to drive in a dirty car. An outside thunder storm, doesn’t make my feel good driving in a dirty car.

3) You contradict yourself. On one hand you’re dismissing the participation of protesters in the uprising demo’s, and pointing out the “millions” of Assad supporters during regime demonstrations. So according to you, the Syrian people support Assad, and isn’t for change. Then you say change is needed. I’m confused.

4) You give Saudi Arabia and Israel too much weight. Israel has little to nothing to do with all of this. What you say about SA could have been true, during the ’90, and early in during the previous decade, when spreading of Wahhabism was at it’s peak. It’s different today. Islamism and Wahhabism is in retreat allover the region. Every survey and opinion poll from across the region indicates that Arabs are sick and tired of Holy-Wars.

Posted by Amir in Tel Aviv | May 2, 2011, 2:14 pm
Amir:

Point#3: There is no contradiction. He asserts that the overwhelming majority of Syrians do want change, but don’t want one that is haphazard. Or that they want Bashar to put into place the necessary “reforms” that will see him relinquish power in 5 years time, when supposedly Syrian society would be mature enough to handle this change.

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 2:29 pm
Wow, so you’re telling me that the $2 million/year (according to your own source) that the U.S. spent on “financing Syrian regime change activists overseas” is what played such a big role in “destabilizing the regime”?

If so, then what a bargain!

Seriously. To help everyone understand what a killer deal this was, let’s take a moment compare it to some other things on which the U.S. government spent $2 million during last year alone:

— A study of the online gaming habits of World of Warcraft players ($2.9 million)

— A single commercial for the census bureau that aired during the 2010 Super Bowl ($2.5 million)

— A project to “replace chemical toilets with a sweet smelling toilet facility” at the Teklanika campground of Alaska’s Denali National Park ($1.49 million)

— A grant to honor a local banjo player in Shelby, NC’s Earl Scruggs Center ($1.5 million)

— About one sixty-ninth (1/69) of the cost to build a single F-22 fighter jet ($138 million)

Honestly, if regime change were so easy, you have to wonder why the U.S. (or other countries) don’t do it more often.

IN ALL SERIOUSNESS. The idea that the $12 million (according to this guy’s own source) that the U.S. spent on “democracy promotion” in Syria between 2005 and 2010, or some facebook fan page that the intel agencies supposedly set up, played any significant role in instigating the current troubles is laughable in the extreme. And it’s quite hard to take this guy seriously when he sits there with a straight face and argues the opposite.

(All data, except the cost of the fighter jet, taken from Sen. Tom Coburn’s Dec 2010 “Wastebook,” published on his Congressional website.)

Posted by TB | May 2, 2011, 2:31 pm
AIG,

Did we ever look at the region as a whole? We need it try that for a change. We always had two camps (or more) and he US siding with its favorite camp.

Gabriel,
I was disappointed that Syria totally ignored political reforms from 2009 to 2011. Before that I fully understand that they did not reform while the Bush administration and its friends in the region were keeping the Syrians busy full time. 2001 we had 9/11, 2003 the Iraq war with Syria next as we now know from many reliable sources

But again, from 2009 to 2011 they could have started to tackle political reforms. The regime is slow and risk averse. They started with economic reforms and were planning (according to people who know) the political parties law this year because we have parliamentary elections coming later in the year.

Syria’s economy was reformed considerably the past two years, they were not sleeping, but they waited too long to start political reforms, I agree.

Why now? because the regime had a cold shower. It is easier to work when you have full control, but they realize now that they don’t have that option. Reforms will come soon, I am convinced.

Posted by Alex | May 2, 2011, 2:39 pm
First, one has to commend Camille for his courage. He knew he would be buried by heaps of hate talk, but he still took the challenge. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Mr. Qifanabki has a big smirk on his face now 😉 I’ll only comment on one point and leave the courageous Camille to respond to the barrage of attacks alone. He’s more than capable 🙂

If it is only one thing you’ll have to agree with Camille on, it is a fact that Bashar is still popular in Syria. You can claim that the “Syrian people” want the fall of the regime until you are blue in the face but that would not change the fact that Bashar still enjoys a comfortable popularity. He did lose a great deal of support among Syrians in the past month, especially after the miserable first speech, but he still enjoys the majority’s support. In other words, his popularity is not limited to the minorities. How do I know that? I simply do by talking with as many Syrians inside and abroad for a month, which is the only opinion polling system available in Syrian today!

The thousands you are seeing demonstrating every Friday in Syria belong to multiple groups who do not have many things in common. Many are Salafists, many are Mulsem Brotherhood, many are extremist Sunnis, many are simply conservative Muslims, many are secular citizens seeking freedom and democracy and end to corruption. To lump them all, like the media do, under the “pro-democracy” label is a grave mistake. A 10 percent of the Syrian people can’t stand Bashar or the Alawis, even if they become the most democratic country on earth. There is another 25 percent of Syrians on the other extreme who will continue to support the regime even if it obliterates half of the Syrian population. It is the rest of the 65 percent of Syrians that are now at play between the two sides. These can go either way, or even go a third way. Bashar did lose a big portion of this group, who was overwhelmingly supporting him conditionally. For now however, the majority of it is still supporting him for different reasons. The regime is not going anywhere anytime soon. Gabriel sums it nicely in 41.

People like Michel Kilo and Bassam Alqadi and other secular activists are today calling loud and clear for what Camille is calling for. Calming things down and stopping the demonstrations, while monitoring the regime and keeping pressure on it peacefully. These are people who spent years in prison for voicing their opinion on the need for reforms in Syria. They are not afraid of anyone or anything. Out of all people, they can see clearly that “the revolution” is being hijacked by the right, and probably the extreme right. They don’t like that. The outcome in their view, and the view of the majority who are not taking it to the streets, could be a “downgrade” from the corrupt brutal authoritarian secular system to possibly brutal theocratic system with endless sectarian divisions. Raise your hands if you don’t think that once the regime falls, the republican guards will immediately become an Allawi militia. Raise your other hand if you don’t think that this will cause the MB to jump to arms again (they are already arming). Once that happens it’s festive season for arms dealers in Saudi, Lebanon and Israel. Every sect will have a militia a la Iraq and Lebanon.

Posted by idaf | May 2, 2011, 2:40 pm
Alex #22

“This applies to Lebanon too. One-man-one-vote democracy might bring a Shia president to replace the current Maronite one.”

The Shi’ites of Lebanon represent 27% of the total population. Where are they going to find the remaining 24% to vote for their “Shi’ite” President ?

Posted by R2D2 | May 2, 2011, 2:46 pm
idaf

a big smirk? 🙂

I don’t smirk. I chuckle knowingly.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | May 2, 2011, 2:46 pm
Thanks Gabriel, that’s what I meant to say.

Amir,

Again, don’t listen to me. ASk AL-Qardawi who wants to get rid of the Alawites but when he talked about Bashar he said (at 12:45):

I have to tell the truth, the people consider Bashar to be one of them (a Sunni!)… he is an open minded, highly educated and young man who can do a lot of good.

http://youtu.be/WJQnE9XuR4o

Posted by Alex | May 2, 2011, 2:47 pm
This kind of arguments remind me of some revolutionary women who opposed universal voting in some European countries because they feared women’s vote would delay the revolutionary achievements (assuming that they where massively conservative and pro-Church). Or like saying, for example, that Women’s Liberation movement has not been good for them given the high numbers of “domestic” killings they still suffer every day from their male partners in otherwise liberal and democratic societies. Change doesn’t come without pain. The longer it was due, the greater the pain.

Posted by mj | May 2, 2011, 2:50 pm
The ‘5 years’ mantra is laughable. Please.

What I’m bothered about, is that all of us are speculating about “what the Syrians want”. The best way to know what really Syrians want, would be asking them ?? There’s a name for this procedure of asking the people, it’s name is “democracy”.

Assad objects to Arab democracy. He finds it important to state his rejection, in almost every interview he gives to the foreign press. Is this the right person to lead Syria towards “reforms” ?

I say, the best solution to Syria’s problem would be, cutting this Gordian Knot. One bold stroke. No 5 years are needed.
.

Posted by Amir in Tel Aviv | May 2, 2011, 2:52 pm
Judging by the slew of recent postings, the Arab world truly is a zoo. Can’t everyone settle down and have a mature discussion and debate?!?!

MJ: just because you piqued my interest regarding woman’s suffrage in the western world, what the hell are you on about. I didn’t understand a word of it. Would you kindly rephrase?

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 2:58 pm
I have to admit I stopped reading after the first 2 “answers” by Mr. Otrakji.
What a bunch of self-delluded bullshit.
No offense to QN, but this is far from a “gem” of an interview.
Mr. Otrakji spins and spins and spins, and conveniently disregards some pretty obvious facts, selectively focuses on others, and uses very suspect logic to arrive to some conclusions.

By his “logic”, the fact that some military personel was killed clearly means that some of the protesters weren’t peaceful (disregarding theories of the regime possibly shooting its own military, for example).

His assertions that the protesters are only men conveniently “forgets” the protests were women blocked the coastal highway to demand the release of their husbands and sons, a few weeks back, or the protest today of women in Damascus in solidarity with the women of Deraa. To mention only a few examples.

And let’s not forget the fact that the regime, according to Mr. Otrakji, is not shooting at anyone, except for “some mistakes being made”. I wonder why the regime has sent several regiments of the army, with tanks and heavy artillery to surround Deraa then. Clearly, tanks aren’t there to “shoot anyone”. And if they do, it’s due to “some mistakes”. *eyeroll*

And I suppose if the protests are such a small minority of the population, why the need to lay siege to an entire city (Deraa)? If these are a few bad apples, funded by Hariri or Khaddam or whoever…then surely, an entire city could not be complicit, right?

And that’s JUST from reading the first 2 questions. I gave up after that.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | May 2, 2011, 3:01 pm
Random thought

I thought that the Shiites were 40pct, and that they had the robust support of the Aounis (not to mention various other groupings).

Is there really any doubt what true democracy would bring in Lebanon?

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 3:07 pm
Gab,

You thought wrong.

Shites 27%
Sunnis 27%
Maronites 21 %
Greek Ortho 8%
Druze 5%
Greek Catho 5%
Other 7%

Posted by R2D2 | May 2, 2011, 3:12 pm
Gabriel,
I meant that one cannot dismiss revolutions according to one’s ideological taste or because one doesn’t like the kind of “animals” that are revolting in the “zoo”. Oppression works only as long as fear works. When the fear is gone, change comes. And it is not always pretty to watch.

Posted by mj | May 2, 2011, 3:13 pm
TB #45,

Qifa Nabki is an influential blog, so is Syria Comment.

Cost = zero.

You can do a lot of damage with 12 millions.

I can do many calculations for you if you like those. but since you tried to be selective in your observations, I don’t think there is any value in trying to convince you.

Did you read also about he four billionaires who “might” be supporting the revolution? … there are weapons and funds smuggled from Jordan and probably Lebanon.

The US software that helps create endless virtual Facebook and twitter characters is free … the 12 millions does not pay for it.

Aljaeera’s 24 hour campaign to topple Assad did not need to be financed by those 12 millions. The Emir of Qatar is spending $100 billions on soccer stadiums alone.

Amir … you laugh easily. Good for you.

Posted by Alex | May 2, 2011, 3:14 pm
Alex,

I do not understand your short answer in #46.

Idaf,

If Bashar is so popular, why is he afraid of democratic reforms? I call this the Bashar Paradox: Since he is so popular and anyway will be elected by free voting, there is no need for free voting in Syria.

The second paradox related to Syria is called the Sectarian Paradox: Unlike Lebanon, and thanks to Assad, Syria is not sectarian, but if it becomes a democracy that will lead to a sectarian civil war.

Once the discussion gets to the two paradoxes I just smile and sit back. You were able to hit both paradoxes in one post. You win. The Assads have been in power for 40 years. The good in Syria is because of them while apparently the bad is caused by KSA, Israel, MB, etc. That is why we need to give them 5,10, perhaps 15 more years.

Posted by AIG | May 2, 2011, 3:17 pm
MJ

I meant can you rephrase the example on women’s suffrage. I didn’t understand a word of it.

On your philosophical point on change, I agree with you.

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 3:19 pm
The BIG fear of, sorry to say, utter stupid Maronites in our country has always been that the Muslims (Sunnis + Shiites) are the majority.

Wake up !

Posted by R2D2 | May 2, 2011, 3:21 pm
Bad Vilbel,

Thanks for making Alex’s point. If all protestors were perfectly peaceful, no military would require any armoured vehicles. Why bother? if they can’t howitzer them down as you’d have us believe.

The military shooting its own personnel is another ridiculous acrobat, meant to explain the many many deaths in army units. I suppose that includes those innocent people hacked to death using axes?

I’ll assume you’re not playing stupid, and I’ll say you probably have zero military experience to suggest such a ridiculous explanation.

Alex is putting forth his arguments. If you want to turn your head and look the other way, that’s your decision. That’s not going to change anything on the ground.

Posted by Averroes | May 2, 2011, 3:21 pm
MJ

(PS… The zoo comment was not directed at you, just a general remark on how tenaciously both sides pro and anti Assads are holding on to and fighting for their positions).

Random Thought:

I’ve seen varying estimates from 28 to 50. I picked the median 🙂

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 3:29 pm
Bad vilbel

alright

1) I said “have mostly been men” … out of 150,00 who protested, 20 to 40 women in Damascus, and 1000 to 2000 along the coastal highway.

But they were always alone … not mixing with their men! … and they did not chant for reforms, but they protested that they needed their men back from detention.

Is this the role women should play in Syria in the future?

As for Daraa, I already wrote that it was a legitimate revolt in that city.

As for why is the army there (and in Banias and Douma)? … it is mostly to go house to house to clean the weapons and to remind the protesters who are still protesting everyday that the state will not be hostage and that Syria will not be pushed into chaos with ease.

The President met with the city’s leadership two weeks ago and everyone came out of the meeting happy, but the young men on the street were listening to sectarian speeches encouraging them to continue revolting…

Daraa has 70,000 people. It is a twin city to a jordanian city that is the headquarters for Jordan’s Salafis (a few miles away from Daraa) … it is also known as the top arms smuggling point into and out of Syria.

Most of the people in Daraa are wonderful people and they had legitimate reasons to demonstrate against the regime. But the President addressed those in the meeting.

Ronald Reagan acted firmly with protesters at UC-Berkley and his popularity in California went up right after

Posted by Alex | May 2, 2011, 3:30 pm
Gabriel,

“(Victoria)Kent(who was affiliated to the Radical Socialist Republican Party) was against giving women the right to vote immediately, arguing that, as Spanish women lacked at that moment social and political education enough to vote responsibly, they would be very much influenced by the Catholic priests, damaging left wing parties. She had a controversy about this subject with another feminist in the parliament, Clara Campoamor. This caused her certain unpopularity and, when women were given right to vote, she lost her seat – as she had predicted – to the conservative majority in 1933.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Kent

Posted by mj | May 2, 2011, 3:36 pm
BV,

Right on. The so called interview reeks of annoying spins as if we are still under the Syrian mukhabarati regime and sitting in a room with Kenaan or Ghazali and listening them spin their yarn.

#62,

Your assad and its heinous regime are too well known for their dastardly behavior including killing their own soldiers as per eyewitness accounts. Stop talking to mirrors…There’s no smoke here.

If anyone were to believe Alex’s and his comrades logic; that Assad has the support of the majority, then as they still have the guns…Allow for an internationally monitored referendum on some issues. Why kill people? Why lie and then become indignant when commonsensical people don’t want to buy your crap any more!

Posted by danny | May 2, 2011, 3:36 pm
Commentors on Alex’s answers glossed over his statements belittling Syria’s economic woes and their effect of the Syrian unrest.

I think that Syria is facing an economic meltdown and this is a huge factor which practically ensures the regime will fall.

Anybody browsing through economic related articles about Syria can easily ascertain that the country’s leading source of income, oil exports, are steadily dwindling and without a major find in the next few year Syria will become a next importer and will loss most of it’s income.
Desertification is continuing in a wild pace and many report on hundred of thousands of Syrians loosing their livelihood to become “refugees” on the outskirts of Damascus.

The population has tripled in a few decades with opportunities for university graduates and other youngsters remaining virtually unchanged and choked by a corruption and nepotism.

Even if 100% of the Syrians LOVE Assad, this tinderbox cannot avoid exploding.

Posted by G | May 2, 2011, 3:48 pm
Alex #58,

If you or the author are going to allege that the, ahem, $2 million dollars that the U.S. spent last year on democracy promotion in Syria somehow “instigated” the current protests, then please explain. What programs, exactly, were so influential? And how?

Unless you provide information directly demonstrating a causal link between the two variables, you are implying what is known in statistics as a spurious relationship. For example, USAID spent $250 million last year in Egypt, much of which was earmarked for democracy promotion. Does this mean that the U.S. duped the Egyptians into overthrowing Mubarak?

Or: USAID provided over $200 million to Haiti in 2009. Does this mean that USAID caused Haiti’s earthquake in 2010, too?

Without a doubt the U.S. government provided some limited support to organizations promoting democracy in Syria, just like it provides support to organizations promoting democracy in virtually every country in the world. But to allege, without justification, that this support — which amounts to a drop in the bucket, in the grand scheme of things — somehow duped average Syrians into the streets to protest the regime is rather ridiculous. Don’t you think?

Posted by TB | May 2, 2011, 3:59 pm
1) There is no disagreement on the need for reforms. The disagreement is on who should be responsible for these reforms

2) For over 40 years, the Assads proved to be incapable of reform.

3) Assad lied when he said he ordered security forces not to shoot on demonstrators.

4) Assad lied when he said he terminated Emergency Rule. When some people in Latakia tried to get a permit for demonstrating they were sent to jail.

5) We have not seen any demonstrator whatsoever with weapons so far.

6) Because foreign media is banned from Syria, the Syrian official story is nothing but a piece of bullshit

7) There was only one reason for shooting and making public the famous Bayda video showing thugs abusing demonstrators in the worst dehumanizing fashion. The video was shot by the thugs themselves and was made public by them in order to instil terror and fear in the hearts of would-be demonstrators.

6) Alex and his new buddies who just popped up (#47 and #62) are just spinning and spinning and spinning as BV accurately observed. They think they are on SC. Delusion has no limits with regime apologists and bigots. It is useless to argue with this bunch.

Amir’s observation is accurate:

“The ’5 years’ mantra is laughable. Please.”

And here’s why,

Posted by iceman | May 2, 2011, 4:25 pm
MJ.

Thanks for the elaboration.

Unrelated… Perhaps I should not opine as I really don’t know much (better said, anything) about the suffrage movement…. but here goes.

I suspect most opposition to suffrage came from conservative and religious quarters, and this woman was more an exception rather than the norm.

It seems in this day and age most opposition to continued women’s rights still come from those quarters (be it from men or women).

Either way, the question of “Rights” should never be a valid question on the ballot box.

This is a diversion though from the central point and analogy, which is quite fitting.

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 4:37 pm
Alex is not trying to be impartial. Alex ‘s answers are integrated within a discourse or worldview which he does not articulate. I believe his basic axiom or value judgment is that he supports the regime.

A full disclosure is necessary for a fruitful discussion. He should therefore reveal his cards and state early on he believes this regime has good intentions. Alex should explain that in his answers to the questions he desires to defend the regime and convince sceptics. Only then we can accept his answers.

Unfortunately, for me and others here this is a non-starter. We do not believe this regime has good faith. We also think it will keep procrastinating simply because a just democratic system will send them all to the gallows for life.

It follows that this regime will never allow democracy or separation of power.

The major reason is that it will be held accountable for all its acts, including Hama.

The discussion with Alex is therefore unlikely to be fruitful because our worldviews are too separate. For example, attempting to debate with him the meaning or the actual magnitudes of the numbers of protesters is a waste of time.

If the discussion is to be rendered more fruitful we would need to discuss why our views on the Syrian regime differ so much and whether (if at all) they can be reconciled.

Posted by rm | May 2, 2011, 4:41 pm
What happened to Dorothy Parvaz in Damascus? Where are the Canadian and US governments?

http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/83735CA7-8127-4D1C-9D4D-E810B17C0E9E.htm?GoogleStatID=9

Posted by iceman | May 2, 2011, 4:42 pm
Alex, What is the difference between what you and Qaradawi, say? Both of you agree that Syria has to have a Sunni president. The difference between the both of you, is that Qaradawi wants it now, and you want it in ‘5 years’.

Why wait ‘5 years’ ? Dragging time? what’s good in dragging time? Every day, Sunni Syrians potentially get angrier, more resentful, could be more revengeful.

If you agree with Qaradawi, then do it now. The thunderstorm thing is just an excuse.
.

Posted by Amir in Tel Aviv | May 2, 2011, 4:49 pm
Alex and others.

I will clarify a few things.
I actually agree with the assertion that there is a large silent majority in Syria (as in most countries, really). We’re certainly not seeing million man protests. There are enough people in every country who are afraid to rock the boat, no matter how shitty said boat may be.
But that’s neither here nor there.

My issue is with rather apparent contradictions there. People are getting arrested by the hundreds on a daily basis. Yourself admit that the 2000 women were protesting for the release of their men. Ergo: The men were arrested. Why? Not peaceful protests (since apparently those are permitted in Syria, we are told). So I guess 2000 men were arrested for all being armed troublemakers. That’s in one location.
So you’re telling me there are thousands of armed men running around terrorizing Syria, funded by the USA/Hariri/Bandar?
Obviosuly, I cannot prove or disprove such assertions, nor can you. But let’s just say this does not pass the smell test.
Neither do a lot of those other assertions and bizarre logic in the above arguments.

Can I prove you’re spinning? No. I cannot. I am not in Syria, nor am I privvy to every incident that’s taken place. None of us can prove anything.
But we’re smart enough people to get a general idea of what’s going on.
You don’t encircle an entire city with tanks, cut off phone and internet communications because of a “few rogue trouble makers”. You don’t kick out all foreign media because of a “few rogue troublemakers”. That just does not add up. Sorry.
We’ve seen the pattern of blaming foreigners/CIA/Mossad etc. before, in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, etc.
We’ve seen it in North Korea too.
It’s textbook stuff. Why is it that this kind of narrative only happens in repressive places, with no proof ever presented and media is always conveniently forbidden from verifying the facts on the grounds.
I don’t see this happening in France, London, Los Angeles or Toronto.
It’s always in places like Syria or North Korea. And then we get these vague and fantastical statements that do not pass the smell test about how “It’s only a few foreign troublemakers.” yet somehow, the almighty beloved regime is incapable of dealing with a few terrorists without bringing out the tanks and encircling entire cities?
If the vast majority of the people aren’t so-called terrorists, howcome they aren’t turning in the terrorists to the authorities? I don’t know about you, but if I’m a faithful resident of Deraa, and I see a dozen armed hoodlums trying to stir up trouble, they’d be quickly rounded up by the local populace. Instead, we have a city under siege by tanks…interesting.

I can keep going on, but really, since I can’t prove anything, it won’t convince anyone anyway. Most of us, I think, are smart enough to use common sense and smell a “fishy” narrative when we see/hear one. It’s really very simple, when things don’t quite make sense, or contradict themselves, there is a good chance they’re fantasies.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | May 2, 2011, 4:58 pm
iceman,

I’m sure Dorothy Parvaz is enjoying the comforts of Syrian hospitality, since there’s really nothing wrong in Syria…

Posted by Bad Vilbel | May 2, 2011, 5:00 pm
Lebanon is Ireland in 3D.

Posted by R2D2 | May 2, 2011, 5:28 pm
Bad Vilbel

About the 1000 to 2000 women who demonstrated. In fact they were wives and daughters andd relatives of those arrested. I think about 500 were arrested in Banias. That’s Abdel Halim Khaddam’s city. It is not friendly to Assad.

It is also a center of Muslim Brotherhood. When they first demonstrated, their list of demands included

– Allowing teachers wearing hte Niqab to teach
– closing mixed-gender schools

And finally, it is near the Lebanese border where it is easy to smuggle weapons and fighters into the city from Tripoli (the fundamentalists maybe).

Notice that Banias (by the sea and by the Lebanese border) and Daraa (directly on the Jordanian border and right next to Ramtha (Salafi stronghold) in Jordan, are the cities with the most serious army deployments.

RM,

As for my bias. I am for stability in the Middle East and not only Syria. If the regime reforms enough the next month or two, I will remain a supporter.

Elias can tell you that in all the discussion forums I setup, I made sure those who oppose my views had the best spot. Check the Syrian Think tank page and you will see that the only two regime opponents appear on top of all the analysts who are pro regime.

Posted by Alex | May 2, 2011, 5:30 pm
# 74 Bad Vilbel,
”My issue is with rather apparent contradictions there. People are getting arrested by the hundreds on a daily basis… So I guess 2000 men were arrested for all being armed troublemakers. That’s in one location.
So you’re telling me there are thousands of armed men running around terrorizing Syria, funded by the USA/Hariri/Bandar?”

How do you explain that around 60 army and security personnel were shot dead and how do you explain the ongoing fighting to control Der’aa?

Posted by Sophia | May 2, 2011, 5:30 pm
Feels like old times at Syria Comment. (Except I was the one in Alex’s position… 😉 )

So far I have yet to read any real rebuttal of Camille’s points (with a few exceptions: TB, freddy, BV, and a couple others)…

Carry on.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | May 2, 2011, 5:34 pm
“As for my bias. I am for stability in the Middle East and not only Syria.”

1. Who is not for stability? No sane human being would want to live in instability and upheaval.

2. Or you mean you value more the current Assad statbility to the possibility of dignity, justice, voice, and freedom? In that case you should accept the fact that others value more the possibility of justice, voice, dignity, and freedom, and are ready to challenge the regime to obtain them.

3. Finally, there is no one form of stability and as other have argued here this regime’s stability is an unstable one (Black Swan type argument here)

Posted by rm | May 2, 2011, 5:46 pm
I have to commend you on your choice of visuals on most all of your posts, Elias.

You visually capture moments brilliantly.

Posted by R2D2 | May 2, 2011, 5:55 pm
#45 “Honestly, if regime change were so easy, you have to wonder why the U.S. (or other countries) don’t do it more often.”

How much more often would you expect? Iran, Nicaragua, Chile, Guatemala, Venezuela. Those are the non-controversial ones. Possibly we might include Georgia, Serbia, Ukraine but to avoid extraneous debate, let us leave it at the first group.

While I would love to see the Syrian oligarchy fall and I don’t think the events have been planned or triggered by the US, it is rather coy to pretend the idea of a US sponsored revolution is far-fetched or unprecedented. It has happened many times.

Also, while I think the fall of the Assad family would be of great long term benefit to Syria and the Arab world in general, it’s not like Sunni extremists don’t exist. Alex and others have every right to be concerned and to have a different opinion about the fall of the Regime.

Posted by Lysander | May 2, 2011, 5:58 pm
“How do you explain that around 60 army and security personnel were shot dead and how do you explain the ongoing fighting to control Der’aa?”

Actually the correct offical figure is 90.

Until proven otherwise, by allowing independent reporting on the scene, we can say they were ALL killed by the fourth brigade of Maher.

When the regime bans independent reporting, that means it wants to hide the truth and it loses all credibility.

Posted by iceman | May 2, 2011, 5:59 pm
79,

Really no rebuttal about what? What are you looking at sir. All his dreamland assertions have been rebutted with room to spare lol.

Posted by danny | May 2, 2011, 6:07 pm
Thanks R2D2. I aim to please.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | May 2, 2011, 6:24 pm
Alex:

On the Baniyas and Munaqabbat.

I still don’t see how things would be different 3, 5 or 10 years from now.

Will the women of Baniyas see the light and shed the Niqab in 3 years time? Or will they cease to want to be “teachers”?

If the angle you’re approaching is that the demonstrators have an “extremist”, “religious” character, I am certain that 3 or 5 years is no where near enough to reverse the trend.

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 6:25 pm
Camille, it was worth the try. You gave it a good/best shot, and that was courageous given that you are not writing for the neo-Syria Comment, but for an expectedly hostile audience, kudos for courage.

But it is here where the congratulatory note end. I will not argue about the morality of your position, because arguably, it may stand some morality/ethics test in the sense that, if one accepts your premise, it may result in preventing a civil war in the short term but in manners not that different from the morality of paying ransom to save the life of a hostage. Nor would I play the numbers game, for it is as useless as arguing which You-Tube clip is fake and who faked more, the opposition, or the regime.

However, I must first say that I will probably hate myself for at least two weeks for writing what I am about to write because I never thought that I would ever be in a position to use or contemplate sectarian calculus, but your post, charged with sectarian terms forces me to use the same framework.

Isn’t it sad that after 60 years of pretending that Syria is not/no-longer Lebanon, and Lebanese pretending that Lebanon it is not/no-longer Syria, we get to a point where the best you could come up with is a deformed version of the Lebanese model to save Syria, right after you described the original, rightfully so at least in my opinion, as a flawed model. You casually proposed a Senate. Can you please enlighten us as to what type of Senate would comfort and ease the minorities’ minds if your description of their state of mind is accurate and your description of the Majority’s state of mind is also accurate. One does not have to dig deep. A geographically based senate would not work because minorities would probably claim seats in only a couple of governorates, and in one of them, one minority would have to split the seats with two other groups. The only type of senate that can provide such comfort, under the conditions you are surmising as reality, would be a purely sectarian-ethnic senate, where seats are assigned using a formula not far, and perhaps more complex than the Lebanese Parliament’s formula. This would be the only way to neutralize a populous/geographically based parliament.

So after 60 years of a leftist military coupe, calling itself a revolution that aimed at eradicating sectarianism, tribalism, poverty, and illiteracy, we now have to go back to a model that we have rejected before this revolution and that we have been berating publicly and privately ever since it was proposed by France. Don’t you see anything wrong with this picture, especially at a time when the Lebanese are getting sick, or at least some of them, of this model.

I have no answer as to how long it would take to install a viable liberal system in Syria, but I know that such system can not be installed by the current regime. It has no interest, and it will attempt reforms that will enshrine a sectarian

Posted by Off the Wall | May 2, 2011, 6:34 pm
rm:

I think there’s enough in Alex’s original posting to merit discussion, even if some of the finer details that are being ripped apart in this forum are bordering on the absurd.

For example, his reference to the geo-politics of the region.

What will come post-Assad.

I have yet to hear any discussion on this.

The closest of an interesting scenario is developing in Egypt, where the caretaker government is “asking” the US to accept the “reconciled Hamas-Fatah” axis, co-incidentally in and around the same time that Hamas declared Bin Laden a fallen Arab hero.

What will emerge post-Assad?

Will it be:

(1) A “technocratic” Sunni-secular government a la Hariri of Lebanon, not interested in regional warring?

(2) Will it be a more conservative religious government? that:

(a) Is not interested in conflagration?
(b) interested in conflagration?

In those two scenarios, assuming all the fear-mongering the Pro-Assads are throwing out will not come to pass… how will this affect the region.

What impact will it have on Lebanon? For instance, will the post-Assad regime find it too attractive an option to continue courting Hizballah as a negotiating chip with Israel?

There is a plethora of interesting political pathways and storylines that do date have not been addressed or touched upon.

Instead, we have people arguing whether 10000 protesters is enough. Whether women are part of these protests. Whether the army personnel killed themselves or were killed by protesters. All relatively insignificant details in the grand scheme of what’s happening in the middle east.

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 6:35 pm
Sir,

I would be happy to go to Syria and do my own reporting on how many Syrians actually support the regime, stability, or are out in the streets dancing in support of Bashar. I’m sure a good chunk of the international media would also like this as well. Unfortunately, those who are there are basically barred from leaving their hotels and actually reporting, when they do people are too afraid to speak with them, and, in the end, most of us are banned from entering Syria in the best of times, much less in these tumultuous days. So, you can talk all you want about how the press is eating up the anti-regime propaganda, but the regime hasn’t given us much more than SANA to rely on, which I think you would agree is not exactly an objective source.

Beyond that, if Bashar is going to make meaningful political reform, why didn’t he begin to do so during the last ten years of stability? Why would he do it now?

You have some interesting insights into why people *might* support Bashar, but I don’t see any meaningful evidence supporting your argument. And I can understand why. How many open, frank political discussions can one have with a large pool of citizens in a police state? I would imagine not many.

I wish peace and freedom to the Syrian people, but I hope it doesn’t continue to be peace at the expense of freedom.

EAF

Posted by EdwardAbbeyFaux | May 2, 2011, 6:41 pm
As I said before, I cannot prove or disprove why 60 or 90 military men were killed.
Result of fighting with protesters? Infighting (2 army units opposed to each other? That was mentioned before) Who knows.
But as pointed out by others, the lack of transparency (kicking out foreign media) is not exactly a move that makes one look honest. Again, smells fishy.

And I don’t understand the logic that it’s ok to arrest the 500 men (or even only 1 man, as far as I’m concerned) because they were protesting about wanting to wear the Niqab in school.
I thought peaceful protests were allowed. Even salafis.

The underlying logic I read here from Alex is that it’s ok to arrest people if they happen to be salafis. His words somehow make it seem like it’s an excuse. “We don’t normally arrest people. But in this case, we had to, they’re SALAFIS! They wanted women to wear Niqabs! The nerve on those people!”

Point is, as far as I’m concerned, peaceful protesters WERE arrested (the reason is immaterial). That seems to be a fact we DO agree on, and even Alex isn’t denying it.
But then he puts “spin” on it, which is the general gist I got from the interview.

It doesn’t read much like a solid narrative, but rather gives the impression of “Yes. The regime is doing bad things, but it has no choice! They’re salafis! They’re out to get us!” and other such justifications.

Again, this is no personal attack on Mr. Otrakji or Alex. I don’t know them or who they represent or what their personal beliefs are. I’m just reacting to the tone of what I’m reading here. Lots of contradictions, covered up with lots of poorly constructed excuses. Take it as constructive criticism. Maybe you need to construct your narrative in a slightly more plausible form. 🙂

Posted by Bad Vilbel | May 2, 2011, 6:43 pm
I am against munaqabat teaching in schools, but has anyone ever thought that it does take a college degree to teach in Syria?

Personally, I believe that the issue of Munaqqabat and religious schools in Banyas was a purely opportunistic request by one local Imam, who inherited the minbar from his dad (not unlike Bashar), and has been a teacher in the religious school that was closed, and perhaps had a couple of sisters also teaching in local schools while wearing the full Niqab. I hope someone from Banyas can tell whether my suspicion is correct or incorrect, either way it would shed some light.

The regime jumped at this issue, although it was never repeated by any other contemporaneous demonstration (not to my knowledge), primarily to brand all demonstrations as being salafi. They even agreed to the shaikh’s demands as a first batch of “reforms”.

Posted by Off the Wall | May 2, 2011, 6:51 pm
BV#74

(Just playing Devil’s Advocate, since Alex has been to date quite careful not to brush off the entire towns of Baniyas and Daraa as religious hotbeds).

Let’s say (hypothetically speaking) that the entire said towns were populated with nothing but the most extreme of extreme fanatics, of the sort that Syria used to send to Iraq to self-detonate in various localities.

Would that change your assessment in #74?

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 6:58 pm
Gabriel
Would you loan us Ziad Baroud for a minister of interior and localities if we go for a technocratic government 🙂

Posted by Off the Wall | May 2, 2011, 6:58 pm
All this talk of who shot who, whether the protesters are armed or not and the rest of the shady details and statistics are a diversion, and an immature one at that. There is nothing exceptional about the Syrian regime.If the regime justifies the attacks on the civilian population as defence then why not allow full coverage by international media if they have nothing t hide.
Instead of scrutinizing these silly details, of percentages and justifications, one should put aside their political and ideological interests and keep in mind the Syrian people of all walks of life, not only in light of what happened in Der’aa but also for the last 40 years. I’m sure there are thousands that are rotting in hell holes after being tortured and abused…only for entertaining a thought of a non-Assad Syria alternative.
The regime is absolute in its authority and its very nature is one out of a Foucaultian play book.
Shame on the apologists to find excuses upon excuses to justify their fears and their relentless hold on outdated ideologies.

Posted by Maverick | May 2, 2011, 7:06 pm
QN #79,

Are you teasing everybody to join the planned frenzy?
How about a big yawn (despite the apparent frenzy so far) at the ridiculous level of his arguments which can only be appropriately answered with sarcasm?

But seriously, here is a rundown on his main points,

1) Manipulation: the most ridiculous argument put forward and at best delusional. Syrians are being manipulated to death despite the ruthless response by the thugs of the regime. Who in his right mind would believe that? How about a more reasonable answer? People are looking for their dignity and freedom. And I may even add even more urgently than any economic demands
2) ”…This implies they have the support of the entire Syrian population….How do you think pro-stability Syrians….”. Nothing but a piece of crap intended to deny the demonstrators the inclusion in the population in order to dehumanize them as being outside the mainstream Syrian population exactly as the regime wants to propagate that they are a bunch of INTRUDERS in order to falsely legitimize the use of force against its own people. He neither provided evidence to show that the Syrian population is for current status quo nor provided evidence that Western journalists and governments are so gullible to make the ridiculous implication he mentioned.
3) Pro-regime parades (this is the proper term and not demonstrations): Were mandatory at the risk of your own peril in addition to declaring school holidays with strict orders to go to schools for pre-assembly and proper instructions.
4) ”While many protests were genuinely, many were confrontational….” The only reliable evidence for violence so far is the ghostly security thugs of Maher firing on both sides in order to mar the strictly peaceful nature of the demonstrators giving the security forces the fake excuse to use force and kill demonstrators.
5) The argument of billionaires, Saudis, Egyptians etc. manipulating the demonstrators is laughable production of the Syrian ministry of information. Has he no shame? Even most shameless Wiam Wahhab apologized for accusing MP Jarra7h and admitted to using fabricated cheques to spin his bull.
6) ”But most Syrians would rather…..”. Again no evidence for such claim and if the regime is certain of its 80% support why not allow outside observers to supervise a referendum to choose a transition government entrusted with drafting and implementing reforms instead of sending tanks to cities.
7) The attempt to localize the revolt is the most ridiculous. We have seen protests in all of 7Hawran region, suburbs of Damascus, Raqqa, Deir el-Zor, Banias, Ma’arat, Qamishly, Lattakia, 7Hims, 7Hama and the Meydan of Damascus and many other places. We have seen over 100000 from 7Hims alone many of whom were massacred next morning by the thugs of Maher.
8) The pseudo-historical argument of supporting the so-called resilience of the Syrian economy is false. The udders of milking cow, Lebanon, have dried. The times when Hafez can blackmail the world are over. Any serious sanctions from the West and the Gulf against the regime would bring it to its knees and to utter submission.
9) His argument about communication is most laughable and will remain so until independent reporters are allowed in Syria unhindered, and means of communications are restored not to mention becoming free of government eavesdropping.
10) His argument about sectarianism and why Egypt and Tunisia are different has been dealt with exhaustively here and elsewhere and in no need of any further discussion.
11) He still does not know what Syrian regime means. Next time he should be prepared well.
12) Alawites have no more claims over Syria as their homeland than any other Syrian group. The appeal to the Jews having similar sentiment to Palestine is from any Syrian perspective at best treasonous and punishable as such. This is only meant for local consumption in this part of the world, and no one should be fooled by the authenticity of the claim.
13) Turkey has no sectarian problems. If and when Alawite-Sunni fights break out in Syria, next day you would see Turkish Brigades rolling down the coast and into Aleppo and the North East.
14) Discussing the Middle East problem in a purely internal conflict context is a typical tactic used by the so-called ‘Mumana’a’ axis to export its internal problems outside the borders. There is no relevance whatsoever to geopolitical implications to the current uprising which is simply seeking basic human rights, dignity, honour and the universal birth-right to live free.

Posted by iceman | May 2, 2011, 7:09 pm
Off-the-wall…

As people in the forum already know :D, I am a complete dunce when it comes to political figures! (Some would argue, on everything else as well!)

I have no idea who Ziad Barroud is, but sure, why not? :D. I read that QN is a supporter, and since on the whole he’s got a good head on his shoulders, I’ll assume that Ziad is just the type of guy you need in Syria (?!?).

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 7:11 pm
Gabriel
Imagine a civil society advocate-lawyer for a minister of Interior. Can there be a better option for a person in charge of taming legendary security agencies. Off course, Syria has plenty of heroic civil society advocates, and I will never begrudge them their hard work, but they have never been tried in governance. Ziad could provide some good transitional training at least in governance issues, while remaining trustworthy.

QN: I am not buttering up, If you go back in your archive during the most recent election (you should install the search engine Alex has on SC ;), you will find that I had good things to say about Baroud then.

Posted by Off the Wall | May 2, 2011, 7:19 pm
Gabriel 92: No. It would not change my take on this matter one bit, because my take is not based on such matters.

I clearly said that I didn’t quite care why people were arrested. As long as they were demonstrated peacefully, it shouldn’t matter if they’re Salafis or not. Even if the entire town is Salafi.
The contradiction lays not in the number of demonstrators, or whether they are Salafis or not. The contradiciton lays in the fact that Assad claims to lift emergency law, yet continues to arrest and detain people who are protesting for whatever (burqas or fried falafel, doesn’t matter).
The contradiction lays in the fact that Assad claims that with the emergency law lifted, and reforms on the way, Syria should be headed towards an open free society. Yet he kicks out all foreign media and refuses to let us corroborate his narrative.
If the entire town of Banias is Salafi, then let independent media go find this out on our own.
In fact, wouldn’t that play into Assad’s hands? “Here, CNN, look for yourselves? We have a bunch of crazy salafi suicide bombers in Banias. You want us to let them roam free and bomb your airports? You’re a lot better off with us Assads in power!”
But no…

Posted by Bad Vilbel | May 2, 2011, 7:22 pm
BV:

I think Alex’s assertion is that the protests are not peaceful. I extended the hypothesis by suggesting the whole town were supportive of a couple of “non-peaceful” protesters and hence would not “give up” the handful of trouble makers.

While I am reaching to absurd depths to create an argument (because ultimately I don’t agree with Alex), this type of scenario is not all that inconceivable.

Here’s an analogy. If HA was found guilty by STL of killing Hariri, how much support would you get within the Shia community in Lebanon to indict senior members of HA?

(Remember, this is the same country that gave all sorts of warlords free-passes for decades of attrocities).

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 7:36 pm
i dont know why people give the time and effort to Camille Otrakji. he made some fantastic websites and thats pretty much it. possibly because theres a black hole when it comes to syrian ‘experts’ who speak english. and that includes the ones living in syria who ‘speaka’ english. the product of the syrian male these days who grew up in syria under the assads is a pathetic species.

he spits fear induced rubbish about wahabi and salafi nonsense just because those extremists have an audience. the kkk still has an audience in the south, that doesnt make the general population in the south kkk supporters.

i’ve tried to argue a point with him once and found out quickly that his arguments and points come out of nowhere and is exactly what post 69 said. its useless. at the end of the day, he’s a syrian christian who found that living in montreal and in a free society, is better than living in syria under a despot. just a shade hypocrytical, eh? i’d like him to go to syria today and try to open his mouth like he does now. it doesnt matter what contacts he has, they’re rounding up people left and right. especially if you have neighbors who dont like you and have put in a word with their local gestapo office. proof? a village outside daraa called irbeen has some 150 or so men that have disappeared, sourced from an old lady that just left syria from irbeen.

even if this regime survives, they’ll have to tilt to iran and china for continued survival. and if they tilt to iran and china, it still means your women will be wearing the full head to toe burqa even if you’re christain. dont like the saudis? the iranians arent any better. you’ve been flanked, chump. all this time you’ve been worried about the saudis and wahabis, the shiites have parked their car in your garage and slowly taking over your house.

popping popcorn and enjoying watching the idiotic mistakes they make and creating more enemies by the day.

Posted by Anonymous | May 2, 2011, 7:40 pm
Ah. I see what you’re saying. I misunderstood your point, I think.
It’s a fair point (although, as you pointed out, quite implausible).
If we’re talking about “revolt” in an entire city, then I suppose it’s a whole different ballgame. However the rules of said ballgame would remain overall the same: Transparency.
Many countries have undergone revolts, armed and otherwise. Typically, the media has always been able to report on such matters.

When it comes to my own personal opinion/beliefs: Revolts should be addressed in non-violent democratic ways, no matter the cost. But we both know that’s not how it works in the real world.

Regardless, we’ve all been around long enough to tell the difference between an armed rebellion in a country, and “cracking down on dissent” (two different things).
I can cite many examples of the former throughout modern history (Nicaragua, Honduras, etc. Several African countries, and so on).
And we can probably agree that the M.O. of “rebellions” is completely different to say repression of dissent in North Korea, Syria, etc.

Typical situation of “i know it when i see it”.

Should be pretty apparent to all.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | May 2, 2011, 7:45 pm
Good work Camille
Although I didn’t like how you divided the Syrian people, but I understand how expatriates thinks what is going on in Syria.
In my view, peaceful demonstrations are legitimates, reform is a must, but going blindly into toppling the regime as an objective is not really realistic.
It is not because the regime is strong ( he is anyhow), but because most of the Syrian people ( I guess) believe in evolutions and not revolutions. We know what revolutions did in the past. We saw what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. We know the complexity in the region; most of the Syrian people are watching the demonstrations on the ground and know how the information is exaggerated in the western and gulf media. We know about evidence of armed groups.
We know that it is easy to sit outside Syria and call to topple the regime, without knowing what does it mean, but for us who are inside we have to care and know exactly that any change should be for the best , and we are not in a position of starting a change that has no clear end.
We love freedom and democracy, but not sure how it could be linked to the so called “revolution”

Posted by Mahmoud Anbar | May 2, 2011, 7:56 pm
A good writeup that kinda shows why it’s hard to take some of these assertions seriously.

http://nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=265733

It’s insulting to one’s intelligence to believe such ridiculous stories (the one about people celebrating rainfall had me laughing out loud).

How could I put any credibility in a regime that comes up with such ridiculous stories? Am I then expected to believe them when they tell me that protesters are armed by foreign conspiracies, etc?

As I keep saying, it’s impossible for me to prove or disprove anything. So the next best thing is the use of common sense. When I hear someone coming up with such ridiculous stories, I can’t be expected to then take them seriously. Smell test is usually a pretty good standard.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | May 2, 2011, 8:19 pm
Excellent post! Finally something comprehensive that is not extremist to neither side, and more representative of the reality of a big majority of Syrian’s position amid the turmoil! A moderate opinion that has a tendency to be ignored by both sides.

Posted by Samar. T | May 2, 2011, 8:19 pm
Since it started almost two month ago, the Turkish government has been very much silent preferring to work behind the scenes through its chief of security.

Yesterday, however, Erdogan and Uglo broke their silence and spoke directly to Assad through public media,

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-242543-erdogan-warns-assad-against-division-of-syria.html

http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5C50AAA5-A536-443C-8097-3CC50E0352CC.htm?GoogleStatID=9

Posted by iceman | May 2, 2011, 8:32 pm
On the democracy note.

I just voted. And boy oh boy is it great.

Here’s to day when the peoples of the Middle East enjoy that same privilige.

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 8:41 pm
This is how the civilians of Dera’a received the Syrian army when it first entered the city on 25 April. There were only chants exhorting the army to stand by the people and suddenly firing began apparently from roof tops. You could clearly see the army tank in the distant while civilians were courageously approaching,

Posted by iceman | May 2, 2011, 8:54 pm
I do give Alex credit for the interview knowing that his points will be heavily critiqued on here. But his reasonings are flawed as has been pointed out by many.

I think these protests are the product of many syrians seeing what is happening in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen & Bahrain and don’t want to be left out from getting from under suppression for decades. The internet has been great help for all these revolts.

The regime’s record is dismal on many fronts, the economy, lack of freedom, the Joulan is still occupied. They had to find an excuse or a scare to stay afloat and divert from the real reasons the citizens are protesting, and sprung up the salafi one, and sprinkled it with the foreign interference bit. This is quite irresponsible, as it is very a sectarian play and may backfire both internally and externally (given the neighborhood).

On the 5 years reform grace period. It is hard to immagine that the ba3th party will genuinely allow true competition after 40 plus year of absolute single party power. Hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think it’s in their DNA. Just the way it is.

Posted by Ras Beirut | May 2, 2011, 9:17 pm
Dear Alex,
Many of my friends and family in Syria share your opinion. I think it is mainly because of two reasons:
1- many are christians and are scared of muslim extremists ruling the country (and who can blame them).
2- most are well to do and own businesses. They are slated to lose everything if chaos prevails.
As much as I understand their concerns, I still can not understand how we can accept what is happening in Syria.
I think that your point about the number of demonstrators in Syria is completely irrelevant. One demonstrator in Syria is too many: When you know that there is a big chance that when you leave your house in the morning, you will not return at night or that you will be arrested later.
Your point about the people who demonstrated supporting the regime is laughable. It just reflects how limited your knowledge is about Syria. Yes, people are still forced to go out and cheer, even if they did not want to. They are threatened with losing their jobs and being arrested. Sorry to shock you, but it is the truth.
Few years ago, the Economist had an article about the Syrian regime. They did not know how to describe it other than as a thugocracy. How befitting.
Many in Syria are very poor and with no hope in any future. This is the problem. The country’s money is being sucked into the bank accounts of a few. You think the 5 year program will fix that?. I say dream on. The president says that he wants to model the change in Syria on the change in China. Excuse me, but where is China after 11 years and where is Syria today after 11 years of his blessed rule?. Everytime I visit, I see more cafes and restaurants. On the other hand, the old book stores are being turned into shops. Syria today is worse than Syria 10 years ago, and Syria 10 years ago is worse than Syria 20 years ago and so on and so forth. I think we can comfortably conclude that the Assads can write the book called: the idiots guide on how to destroy a country.
My last question is: where is Asma Al Akhras? I have always admired her and praised his choice in this smart, well educated and very presentable wife. Where is her voice? Is she sleeping well at night knowing that one of those 13 year olds that were tortured for expressing their opinion could have been her child?
And why on earth does she call herself Asma Al Assad? when did we Syrian women change our names upon marriage?.

Posted by Sheila | May 2, 2011, 9:56 pm
Thanks Alex,
You make a lot of sense for people who have common sense, The question is how many in the Mideast have common sense, Not many, i fear.

Posted by Norman | May 2, 2011, 10:12 pm
Reading through the comments one can see how we all approach the situation through the different lens of perspective we have. I laud Camille for taking a principled and contrarian position which has generated a lot of discussion. The truth be said, we are all far away from the situation and our actions and reactions might be different if we were on the ground there. This should not stop us from discussing the issues respectfully and debating the principles that we live by.

Even in Montreal, large groups are known to have become unruly. The dynamics of a demonstration can change quickly. See http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2008/04/22/mtl-habs.html for one example.
This is not to say that it is acceptable to shoot at peaceful demonstrators. It is so sad to have death, mayhem and so many versions of what went on.

Maybe those who are history buffs could share different historical examples and then we could look at the parallels and differences to understand better the situation.

Posted by Nabil | May 2, 2011, 10:31 pm
Ras Beirut, thanks. I did try twice to not do the interview knowing these times it is impossible to please many people, on QifaNabki or anywhere. But Elias is one of my favorite Lebanese (or non Lebanese) and it is an honor to be on Qifa Nabki.

Off the wall,

Two years ago I was going to help Elias work on a campaign for a Senate in Lebanon, and I have been always in favor of having a senate in Syria. Parliament will still be populated through one-man-one-vote system.

Here is something I wrote in 2007 when Ehsani and others were sure Syria will never be a democracy. In 2007 I thought Syria needs at least 7 years.

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/?p=229&cp=all#comment-27852

I don’t think it was such a bad idea to have a senate. But these days you hate solutions in general… And you seem to be viewing those who seek them as having questionable moral values.

Edward,

Syria’s relation with foreign journalists has a complex history and both sides (Syria and the journalists) are to blame for the failure to accurately report on Syria, most of the time.

Regime’s faults

– They hate criticism. (though they started to improve the past few years)
– They assume all journalists love Israel/hate Syria
– They don’t believe they need to communicate.

Journalists faults
-Many are indeed biased against Syria because Syria is not part of “the international community” …
– Most do not understand Syria well … it is really not easy. And even if they did, their editor might not.
– Many come to Syria feeling they are on a mission … to help promote “human rights” … So they end up writing an article based on a conversation they had with a Syrian painter who complained about the regime

I’m not saying journalists need to change anything, just explaining where Syria and journalists covering Syria are both to blame.

Here is a good article by Charles Glass today:

http://takimag.com/article/leave_syria_to_the_syrians/print

“Syria is a complex and diverse society in which outside do-gooders risk destroying all they claim to support.”

Posted by Alex | May 2, 2011, 10:35 pm
Now that the results are rolling in, can I take back the above statement 🙂

Posted by Gabriel | May 2, 2011, 10:46 pm
” Most do not understand Syria well … it is really not easy. And even if they did, their editor might not.”….and even if the editor does know, he might have an off day?!?!

It seems to be that Syria is such a complex place to live that the only options are acquiesce or get out!

I tried taking the “Bashar the reformer” seriously and entertained the thought of a worse outcome in post-Assad dynasty Syria, but the arguments in the pro-Assad camp have not only been poor, but bordering on ridiculous, Alex not excluded.
I love the above post that entails why reporting in Syria by independent media outlets make for inaccuracies.
Regime’s faults

– They hate criticism. (though they started to improve the past few years)
– They assume all journalists love Israel/hate Syria
– They don’t believe they need to communicate.”

Does that not prove all the more, the corrupt mentality of the regime.

Posted by Maverick | May 2, 2011, 10:59 pm
This is a serious analysis that is basically relying on old-fashioned research and syntheses. It is a breath of fresh air to read something different from the ill-informed commentators on this blog, who are driven by passion and blind ideologies–instead of exegetically driven academic studies.

Maybe this blog is not meant to be for academics, but it is catering for people who are supposed to know how to read and understand texts. I honestly do not think that Danny, HK, Iceman, Bad, etc., and other commentators understood what they reacted viscerally against. Alex is basically saying that for the stability of the region, for possible peace, for the protection of minorities in the region, and for a balance of power, the current Syrian regime is absolutely necessary. While everyone else is screaming freedom, democracy, change, and liberation without contextualizing what these entail (yes people are.being killed and that’s why we need to understand who and why, etc.) Alex is focusing on the big picture, what is happening on the ground and what possible reasons, effects, relations, etc. are brought about.

Everyone is reacting like trained Pavlovian dogs, with short attention spans and blind hatred when Alex’s prescriptive bias in his description is actually not different of yours: a respect for difference and a peaceful, democratic, autonomous ways of.living not manipulated by forces and factors that you cannot see. It is a question of vision. You do not have to agree with the analyses but please understand such analyses from a minimally objective or hermeneutic engagement. Listen, hear, and see beyond your epistemological limitations.

Alex and QN, thanks for a good read.

Posted by parrhesia | May 2, 2011, 11:12 pm
This is the best analysis that I’ve ever heard so far. It actually summed up exactly hwo I feel about the situation.
Thank you for this interview..

Posted by S.A. | May 2, 2011, 11:15 pm
Maverick

I like how many of you love to describe opinions you do not like as “ridiculous” and “laughable” … words that make you feel you are the opposite … “serious” and “impressive”.

I am glad you are being entertained with all the hilarious things are wrote so far.

Posted by Alex | May 2, 2011, 11:19 pm
“Does that not prove all the more, the corrupt mentality of the regime.”

Maverick, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Try to go through the Syriacomment archives for an ‘enlightening’ experience in discovering the ‘art’ of justifying the most absurd of absurdities perfected by the Baathist ideologues and apologists. But it is not all that bad. You would also discover some who have very sound and reasonable arguments and often quite articulate.

I love most the linked article in that post. And by the way the main arguments of that article were perhaps stated here on QN on more than one occasion. I was among the few who expressed an opposition to any Libya-style interventions in Syria unless massacres start being committed that are at the moment taking place sporadically. I also believe the relationship of current events to the collapse of the Ottoman order and the colonialism which followed were first expressed in this forum while the SC participants, particularly the regime bigots, were waging their cyber-sectarian bigotry warfare on the pages of Dr. Landis.

Posted by iceman | May 2, 2011, 11:29 pm
W

Posted by Parrhesia | May 2, 2011, 11:51 pm
Double ditto and two amens to Bad Vilbel’s comments at #74 and follow up at #98.

Iceman, I don’t think Camille believes in videos such as the one you put up there – he thinks it is fake or doesn’t show the full story where the persons fired first… or that the persons firing from a rooftop are not military but unknown armed people – even though… they are twenty meters from the military and somehow – nobody could catch them or apprehend them or identify them.
Sophia asked how we are to explain the 60+ soldiers and security people who got killed. Of course it is possible that there was some revenge killing. Nobody knows. But again, how come there is no evidence being put forward- hard evidence. This is completely critical if you are going to make an argument that the armed forces are entitled to shoot at people. If you can deny the videos that show unarmed protesters and residents being gunned at with machine gun fire- automatic weapons, I think you have to be able to come up with that evidence that they are armed and were actually attacking offensively. Otherwise, there is simply no justification. And even if in this case some of this were true, it is not as if gov’ts and military are unable to apprehend a number of armed people without firing at pretty much everybody.
If you defend this – than it stands to reason that you think all the people in the vicinity are guilty of insurrection and deserve to be threatened with death or to be killed.
What justification could there be? I don’t see it. It certainly cannot be because of any ideology, if it could be shown that %100 percent identify as “salafi” – which hasn’t been shown. It hasn’t even been shown in Deraa or Banyas, but Camille says he has his sources – and he believes his sources who tell him it is so – and he knows who lies and who doesn’t with total conviction.
And what about all the others who are not Salafi- do we think the many thousands of people from Homs are also salafi??? I saw a lot of machine gun fire released into the square… – was this fake? because there are a lot of people from HOMs who have reported out that this is what happened and they – reporting are not even particularly religious, never mind Salafi.

Being a salafi – might be something we should be critical of in a public forum or social world of exchange, but kill them? deprive them of all rights?

In the United States (even though i kind of hate comparisons)… you can be a neo-nazi and have a parade down the street and say whatever the hell you want in the most racist terms possible. You can’t even be arrested for that. It is only if you start stockpiling too many assault rifles and make a compound and commit some federal crimes according to the bureau of tabacco and firearms – that the authorities MIGHT come down on you. but your ideas?? No, you can’t arrest people and kill them for their ideas and what you think they might do in the future.
We have plenty of radicalism here in the realm of ideology and beliefs, no lack of it. But we agree to tolerate each other – as long as you play by the serious laws. You can’t discriminate in the public realms – of work and service and education etc. That is where it is important.
In Europe – hate speech is illegal – and inciting violence – but the bar is set very high and very clear where the lines are.

How do you convince people to respect minority rights by taking away their rights?? is that really a plan? I think it actually creates more hostility , more entrenched retrograde responses and comes back to haunt everybody much worse.

Somebody is going to tell me Syria is not America. But these issues are issues of universal human rights. Ready or not – Syrians need to be able to enter the world we live in.
It looks to me – very much- like Camille thinks that only Sunnis in Syria – can’t move into the modern world of negotiated rights and respecting minority rights. He thinks Islam is fundamental at odds with such systems of modernity and post modernity. But I think he doesn’t read philosophy or any of the modern islamic reformist modernist – intellectuals. Or, perhaps he thinks that the masses can’t be counted on to open their minds…
so…i guess we had better not find out and give that a chance???
where does the actual data come from… not the history book data. Not the facts about who did what in 1977, but the sources that are anthropological, sociological, from ethnography, and other human social science research and investigation? I don’t see anything of that – that is coming from a reputable source of information. Even if we can get it – nobody can predict the future, but what is wrong with asking the barber in damas or the cab driver or the maid or the shopkeeper.
Sophia is showering praise on Camille as being soooo much an expert. He is an expert at compiling information out of history articles and web new and documentary. But he hasn’t set a foot in the Middle East – in coming up on 30years… perhaps a real visit or a stay for awhile might shed a more nuanced light…. a human light.

Yes, why are we talking about whether women protested or not. What really was the point of mentioning this in the article??? C- you never said – you just presented it – as if it is supposed to speak for itself. Yet to anyone who believes that there are actually guns pointed at the people in the streets and sometimes a tank or two – the question is Why would! the men of Syria bring their wives and children into the protest with them. This is totally normal behavior in a culture where men are meant to protect their families and women.
but what were you trying to say? Because it really seemed like a “manipulative” issue to bring up. You harp on others manipulation- and yet there was no other purpose it seemed except to imply (without even having the nerve to state it) that this was somehow proof of the sexism and retrograde gender relation sensibilities of the protesters…. therefore – they must be conservative fundamentalist people.
No doubt they have old world gender dynamics. So what. Are you really going to tell me that the Syrian Christians and Alawite don’t???? do the alawites have women in their military??? I think I saw one token female in the presidential cabinet.
See if you had been to Syria in the last 25 years – you would no very well – that this is absurd. I can tell you for sure that there is absolutely just as much sexism and gender ‘oppression’ in the Syrian Christian family’s household as in the muslim household. They are no different. Syrian Christian are just as serious and conservative about the virginity of their brides as anybody else. I actually checked a LOT on this subject. Christian girls are no more independent or free than non- christian… and they still wash the clothes and clean the house and take shit from their husbands as their duty… etc so on and so forth.
And if the shoe were on the other foot and the military were firing on Christians, then I am almost certain the men would try to keep their children and wives and old parents in the house too.

So….you know- you are manipulating, pure and simple to make such points… and deliberately imply and hold a double standard build on your own prejudices.

As Off the Wall said, sorry to go there – but it has become necessary.

Posted by Zenobia | May 2, 2011, 11:55 pm
Alex,

I did not describe opinions as ridiculous and laughable because I did’nt like them, I described them as such because thats what they are.
Read the above post again, here is the quote:
“Syria’s relation with foreign journalists has a complex history and both sides (Syria and the journalists) are to blame for the failure to accurately report on Syria, most of the time.

Regime’s faults

– They hate criticism. (though they started to improve the past few years)
– They assume all journalists love Israel/hate Syria
– They don’t believe they need to communicate. ”

Is it justified? really, that no independent media is allowed because the Regime assumes, does not like, and does not believe….
Even citizens filming from their phones were apprehended.
By arguing numbers, percentages and useless statistics in your interview and the above responses, and diverting the issue through narrow alleyways all in an attempt to defend a ruthless and corrupt regime is something to ridicule,in addition is offensive to those who lost their lives in the protests, and in the rotting jails.
Every system is complex,but it does not mean it is unreadable.

Posted by Maverick | May 3, 2011, 12:01 am
Zenobia…

I was at a dinner party a few nights ago, and a Canadian chap who’d spent a considerable amount of time in Egypt got to talking to me about recent events.

I was a little surprised that what ‘amazed’ him most about the Egyptian demonstrations was the mixing of men and women during the demonstrations.

So I ask you this… Why is this not a valid conversation topic?

Why did women in Egypt go out and not only demonstrate, but lead demonstrations?

Is Egypt a more ‘secular’ and progressive society than Syria? Is it less misogynist? In the early days of the Egyptian revolution, who knew what the regime there would do (in fact women got attacked…)

And why are women in Syria not taking such a prominent and active role in demos? Even if they are killed. Don’t they have an equal stake in what happens?

Posted by Gabriel | May 3, 2011, 12:13 am
Alex,

I can fully understand the minorities’ anxiety about a potential hard core islamist takeover, but somehow, I think the regime is exagerating this risk, as it is self serving to do so, and this is a very dicey strategy in the long run in my view as it might allienate a large segment of syrian society, as well as many arab counties plus possibly Turkey.

It seems that the leadership is somewhat removed from reality or was caught off guard and grabbed the first tool in the box. Few weeks ago Bashar was telling the WSJ that my people love me and they won’t rebel because of this and that, plus they are not ready for democracy (not too flattering to the syrian people I say).

This crisis could have been handled much better by not only offering reforms, but to immediately start practicing the ones that the government can control and make a visible difference now, such as practicing the ending of emmergency rule instead of making empty promisses, and allowing world’s journalists access to see for themselves, thus eliminating a lot of the speculations that are going on right now.

I personally wish the best for Syria and the syrian people, and hope they come out ahead from these turbulent times.

Posted by Ras Beirut | May 3, 2011, 12:20 am
@ Iceman

Fyi Mr. Ajami although he is a professor at Johns Hopkins and a senior fellow at Hoover Institution, he supported and influenced the war on Iraq. Condoleezza Rice used to summon him to the White House every two days, he was her puppet. He did not hide the fact that he is Shiit and hated the rule of Sunni Saddam (NB: I’m not defending Saddam but stating the obvious). He became the best friend of Cheney. He wrote articles to please Cheney trying to convince Arabs that the US is not in it for Oil only weapon of mass destruction (fyi they haven’t been found yet). Please…..don’t insult readers quoting Ajami.
Few years later, he wrote a book stating it’s too early to call Iraq war a failure… Please Iceman explain to me how the Iraq war is a success? Christians were expelled from Iraq, did Blair, Bush or Cheney hand in their home keys to Christians?
I wrote same questions to CNN, on Anderson Cooper blog who hosts Ajami almost every evening, my comments were removed although I did not use offensive language only stating the obvious…So much for freedom of speech. Ajami, himself preaches about freedom of speech but when it comes for viewer on CNN to ask a valid question, he/she is discarded.

Posted by Equus | May 3, 2011, 12:21 am
Maverick:

I don’t think there’s anything ridiculous about Alex’s point when you measure things in the mentality of the Middle East. Nor do I think the comparisons to North Korea etc are relevant.

Forget the autocratic regimes that routinely kick journalists out for expressing regime unfriendly ideas, and take supposedly democratic Turkey, which unless things changed since last I checked still criminalizes “insulting Turkishness”, or the “Turkish nation” in its previous life.

The type of metric you’re using seems universally flouted throughout the region, and now all of sudden Syria is supposed to be the light of all Middle Eastern nations held to a higher standard of expectation than what is happening elsewhere.

If people like Alex and Norm are dismayed. I think its quite understandable, especially since there exist people who argue- quite unabashedly- using the same “regime slogans” when the country in question is not Syria, but say bahrain.

Posted by Gabriel | May 3, 2011, 12:36 am
Gabriel,
I think it is valid if it can be right out there as to what we are actually talking about. C – never said WHY he was making the point and what was the message or implication. I drew my conclusion – from what was implied. but if he has a different explanation – i would like to know. He has made a lot of the fact that the MB and other radical element are well on their way to taking over the Egyptian political field and that activists from there are part of the fomenting influences, so I doubt Camille is going to tell you that Egyptians are more progressive.
I do think the questions your brought up are very interesting.
I am not sure if you are right – about the Egyptian women taking the same risks as Syrian women would be. I would have to go back and look at the dates on the footage and pics. i remember putting a number of photo files on my fb particularly of the women – and it seemed to be well after it was evident that the military was not firing on people. The “bravest girl in Egypt” video shows a girl in hajab – doing rally calls right in front of guards who are just standing there blocking them from moving towards a certain building. That would not even happen in syria- these people would already have been arrested for just doing that – and likely have the shit beaten out of them, women and men alike. If you go to the pics from the day in Tahrir where the ‘pro-gov’t’ pro-mubarak protesters/ralliers came out – and there was a huge brawl with the horses and camel etc. I don’t remember seeing any women in the middle of that.
So, – you know – I think it is different circumstances. There were still possibilities for political activity and protest in Egypt before they ran into gov’t crack down – and THEN – the military came out and stepped in the middle of it – to protect essentially. It was apparent very quickly.
I also think that in general there is more political activism alive and well in Egypt – including women activists and feminists even – well before this revolution and that is also a factor. This is barely the case in Syria. Ironically – you can find some recent documentaries and columns that argue that one of the arenas for ‘feminism’ if you will – though not by that name – women’s empowerment in Syria and perhaps in other countries in the muslim world – are in Mosques!… Women are striving for equal footing and to elevate their stature within the religious community and within the environment. Perhaps this is a double edged sword because it seems to me to go along with continued gender separation and allowing only certain outlets for empowerment – yet… it is interesting nonetheless and has some value i think.

Egypt has more open political opposition to begin with and more activism to begin with – and women were already part of this prior to the upheaval. Yet, even in this revolution – they were both dynamic and yet got mauled at times and assaulted on occasion at least after the initial celebratory moment.

Posted by Zenobia | May 3, 2011, 12:44 am
Gabriel- I forgot to add my important point on this- which is that – yes, Syrian women I believe are more subdued politically than Egyptian women – but this would be regardless of whether they are Muslim or Christian. Whereas – given Camille’s over arching argument – i feel he brought up his point about their absence to support an idea or picture that their absence reflects his presumption of the conservative Sunni belief system and oppressive religion standards of the Syrian protesters/uprisers and so forth.

Posted by Zenobia | May 3, 2011, 12:55 am
Thanks Zenobia for a very thoughtful and remarkable comment.

We (most of us) have been saying this from day one in this forum. No argument is required to justify accusing a government of lying and seeking to hide the truth the moment it bans independent reporting and severs means of communication. In addition, any so-called evidence produced by such government is subject to suspicions of fabrication. If Camille refuses to believe such amateurish videos that capture much of the truth which is sought to be hidden by the regime he defends, then he should accept with open mind all the mockery and sarcasm that has been heaped in this thread so far.

Why should anyone remain silent while his/her intelligence is getting insulted with such meaningless arguments as he puts forward especially in such circumstances as we’re witnessing?

Posted by iceman | May 3, 2011, 12:58 am
Zenobia,

I think it certainly is an interesting discussion point. And perhaps a little counter-intuitive to the typical pro-Baath storyline. The one that claims it champions secularism, women’s rights etc.

It seems from what little anecdotal evidence we have that women in Egypt may well have been more liberated- with or without the Hijab.

And what’s been happening region-wide has been shattering all sorts of biases and pre-conceived notions. When all these revolutions were starting to rock, I have to admit that I thought Syria would be immune because of its staunch pro-palestinian position.

Now I don’t know what to think anymore. Nor do I know where things are heading.

Posted by Gabriel | May 3, 2011, 12:58 am
Fair enough Gabriel, I understand it is all relative. However, If one tries to justify as to why the regime doesnt allow foreign press, or even local press along the lines of the regime has had bad history, or journalists get it wrong….or this beauty ” the editor” might get it wrong.and all sorts of nonsense, it would be just easier to come out and say the truth, instead of hiding behind petty excuses.

Posted by Maverick | May 3, 2011, 1:08 am
thank you very insightful

Posted by Louai | May 3, 2011, 1:25 am
Alex
we are not talking political fashion and whether I like or dislike solutions. I am asking whether in your opinion, the Senate you are proposing would be regionally based or sectarian-ethnic based or Both…?

Ok so I went back, and got the post you have kindly linked to, here is what you said then.

Bicameral parliament (house freely elected, senate with veto power represents all regions (or minorities)… guaranteeing secular nature of the state).

Sounds good, but it only gives me a hint, because you are conflating regionalism with sectarianism. The states in the US are entities with physical and jurisdictional boundaries akin to regional districts (Muhafazat) in Syria, and as I mentioned, there is no guarantees that such will give minorities any seats (consider the major under-representation of Copts in the Egyptian Parliament). Sects, on the other hand, do not have well delineated boundaries except for ones own allegiance and birth. Therefore, for the Senate you are proposing to guarantee minority rights in the way described in your interview, all minorities must be guaranteed seats in manners that give them sufficient leverage against the majority (assuming that the majority is as callous as you claim). Such can only be elected based on each minority-(religious or ethnic), which requires one to be legally identifiable as a member of the minority (Identity card or sect card), or appointed by religious/ethnic leadership of these minorities, which puts us back to the 1930s. I do not hate solution, i m just trying to get more details.

It may be that Syrians inside Syria will opt for such solution. But its implementation will cement and empower the same type of traditional leadership you have claimed to fight against in Lebanon. As you know, the devil is in the details….

I do not hate solutions, I simply try to see these solution for what they are. I am always a skeptic and my skepticism is nothing new, and my interest in details is not new either. I am as I have always been, against sectarianism in any shape or form.

Posted by Off the Wall | May 3, 2011, 1:29 am
Notice

Dear Forum,

HK and Lally will be absent in order to mourn the loss of their ideological hero OBL.

Please leave your names and addresses and I’ll make sure you get to sign the card I got for them:

http://www.sayitwithecards.com/index.php?step=makecard_step1&ec_id=2704&lang=english_lang.php

Posted by Akbar Palace | May 3, 2011, 1:34 am
I thought Syria was immune too, but that was because I think it seemed to me sooo full of malaise.
One of the things that we don’t talk much about is that a lot of differences are more about class than about religion or nationality.
I mean my relatives are by syrian standards upper middle class Damascene – Sunni. One of my aunts has six daughters – in my generation aged between approximately 40 to 50. Four out of the six have worked professionally out of the home- three on an ongoing basis. They are all college educated. Three have been divorced, one of whom remarried. None- are covered and three pray five times a day. I would totally call them liberal minded. Are they representative? of their class? I sort of think so. And the younger women of the next generation are going to be even more liberal.

But if we go to the family of the poorest uncle of mine – his daughter although she went to college – she is in full cover from head to foot. They live in a more conservative area – they are not very liberal at all.
If you go to the poorer areas of Damascus, obviously people are more conservative and more religious i would guess.
This correlation does not hold everywhere you go – but I think it fair to say… there is a connection.
Isn’t there a connection across the world – in many places?
I know this is a sweeping generalization…
but in Egypt I am sure it is the same but the more educated classes and educated women are likely more modern and more politically active.
If you go to the neighborhood where people are starving – they probably spend more time thinking about and praying to go for salvation!
and… you know – if you go down the socio-economic latter in America,,, geee- people are more religious, and more socially conservative and more retrograde in their gender relationship in many places.

So, my conclusion from this albeit- superficial and unscientific analysis, (but it seems to make intuitive sense) is that if it is modernism and liberalism we are trying to strive for – and non-traditionalism and more secularism – then… I would suggest that we all focus our attention on education and economic elevation for EVERYONE, instead of focusing on sectarian divisions and what religion we think is more retrograde. Provide sustenance and education and economic opportunities, and guess what…. no need to worry about radicalization and fundamentalist ideology.
Open up the system, open the society, open economic opportunity, open communication…. open people’s minds, and things will happen we could never imagine possible.
Fundamentalism is a function of deprivation and oppression. You cannot kill it with more deprivation and oppression.

look, what do you know, i have turned into an idealist…

while Camille is being a “risk averse” ( i would say cowardly) pragmatist- losing his ethical compass.

Posted by Zenobia | May 3, 2011, 1:43 am
You could redraw the lines of the Muhafazat – sort of like we do in America with gerrymandering… to create minority districts
mind you this is sort of totally undemocratic in a way…. because now this practice is also used to create conservative and liberal ie republican and democratic districts…
and by the way, our Senate may protect minorities but of late – it sort of leads to tyranny of the minority population states as well… so not so perfect…

Posted by Zenobia | May 3, 2011, 1:49 am
Gabriel
I think you are right that women in Egypt may be more liberated than their counterparts in Syria, but that is only because Egypt, even during Mubarak’s days, had a much wider margin of political freedoms than Syria will ever have under the current regime or any of its proposed re-incarnations. The corollary is out there and is not very hard to detect. I think Zenobia’s comment as humbly presented as they are, carry a lot of thoughtful and well reasoned arguments.

From day one, the real manipulation of the Narrative has been the regime’s strongest weapon to maintain the silent majority silent. The only way that can be done is if this silent majority, already pre-disposed to fearing change, fears the agents of change more than the agents of the regime.

Alex accuses those who try to moderate the religious and sectarian argument on fasebook pages as being manipulators aiming to hide the true image of the uprising. Why not see that as weeding out these voices and trying to maintain the protest and its ground and cyber activists on a cleaner ground and enlighten them with a better message, not only to appeal to more people, but also to weed out bad elements.

The cyber activists of the regime have by far been the more vulgar any time they enter discussions. Theirs has been a hit-and-run approach. Their gang mentality and style was evident (in general). Off course Alex and others can go back and present a few screenshots to demonstrate what he is calling manipulation, but I have been in political protests in the US, and we have always tried to isolate and shun opportunists with racist or violent slogans. First you try reasoning with them and showing them that theirs is counter productive and counter ethical message, and if they are not convinced, you simply split the protest and let them have their own protest and proceed with the clean group.

Posted by Off the Wall | May 3, 2011, 2:14 am
Thanks Gabriel and Ras Beirut.

As I said, the regime needed that cold shower. They were getting a bit too confident. It is not enough to be successful in your foreign policy.

Zenobia, we had our election night in Canada. I just voted for the liberal party candidate.

But the conservatives won … now they have a majority government.

There was no Canadian “Christian brothers” party leader that said “our ultimate aim is for Christianity to rule the world”

And I did not see any video on YouTube of Vatican clergymen telling Canadians to vote Christian and warning the infidels that God will punish them like only God can punish.

That is all I want to see in the Syria and the Middle East… no Muslim Brotherhood in politics and no Saudi and Egyptian imams assuming they have the right to interfere in Syrian politics because they are Muslims.

Posted by Alex | May 3, 2011, 2:17 am
The above said, i must say that more recently, the facebook comments have turned rather personal against Bashar and the Assad family and much less substantive.

It is very clear that facebook participants are not yet organized into a coherent political message except being initially for more freedom and later for regime removal and punishment. Coherent political message remains lacking, and I hope it does not stay so for long.

Posted by Off the Wall | May 3, 2011, 2:21 am
Alex, may be it is a minority group but does the name CHP ring a bell.

Zenobia
Gerrymandering districts may work to the advantage of minorities only in two out of 13 districts, but not in the rest of the Syria where there is a lot of mixing unless you start going into neighborhood and street level (zanga zanga). A senate must have equal representation for each group it wants to protect regardless of the population. To accomplish this in Syria, while maintaining an appearance of geographical representation would require a much larger senate, which in itself defeats the concept of the Senate as a smaller, yet equally powerful “house of elders”.

Posted by Off the Wall | May 3, 2011, 2:35 am
By the way, I am not against a Senate, I am against a sectarian-based senate.

Posted by Off the Wall | May 3, 2011, 2:37 am
I did not read the post relating to the creation of a senate with veto power for the purpose of protecting minorities in Syria. I understand the principle behind it but it is not clear on what basis such senate will be constituted in order to achieve its purpose as Off the Wall said. A Bicameral Chamber may work in Lebanon based on sectarianism because it is a natural evolution from an existing state of affairs. The country is recognized by all its constituents as sectarian. In addition there is equilibrium of sects in Lebanon which lends force to the acceptance of the veto power entrusted to such senate based on such realization as all constituents having equal weight on the ground.

Syria in theory is not a sectarian state but it could descend into one by de facto as a result of a prolonged conflict.
The lack of equilibrium similar to Lebanon on the sectarian level in Syria would make the creation of such body almost impossible.

This is perhaps the dilemma that Off the Wall foresees but refrains from articulating. And it is a huge dilemma.

On the other hand, if the senate is to be created on basis other than sectarianism, then I fail to understand its purpose. Yes there are other ethnic minorities that may or may not be affiliated on sectarian grounds. But are you going to create a body composed of ethnic and sectarian groups up to the nth degree? The Kurds for example may be eligible for representation. But are you going to represent some ethnic groups that may exist in theory but have almost zero presence on the ground?

Looking into how Canada evolved into a mosaic of communities may perhaps provide some clues to this dilemma. I’m not sure if all or some Arab expatriates in the US are aware of this. Canada did not follow the melting pot model that you guys in got used to. We are a Community of Communities, a real and diverse mosaic.

Posted by iceman | May 3, 2011, 3:58 am
QN says: “Camille has taken the trouble to respond in great detail to my questions. If you disagree with him, then make an argument…. So far I have yet to read any real rebuttal of Camille’s points.” On the whole, Camille has too few points, too little analysis, and too much attitude. I’m a Bashar regime supporter, but I actively disliked the above interview and I’ll tell you why.

First and foremost, it’s too long and rambling. Nearly half of it is about politics outside Syria. That half of it is irrlevant and worthless. As I’ve been reading material about the Syria situation over the past week, there’s nothing less interesting to me than the question of what USA policy should or shouldn’t be on the matter. I get pissed off when journalists convert the interesting Syrian politics question into the uninteresting Western foreign policy question. Quote: “If President Obama is serious about progress in the Middle East, he has to personally take charge of relations with Syria.” That’s a choice example of Camille Otrakji’s vapid ramlings for you. Here’s another choice example: Question: What’s the best case scenario for Syria, in your opinion? His answer: “I can’t discuss Syria without also discussing the Middle East…. The International community must help Israel and the Arabs reach comprehensive peace in the Middle East….” and then he proceeds to turn the current internal affairs situation in Syria into a pretext for idle yap-yaping about international relations. Bad move. Here follows some additional complaints from me about Camille Otrakji.

Camille Otrakji says: “Certain groups decided to try and capitalize on this act of protest in Dar’aa and turn it into a nationwide revolt.” Question: Which groups? He then proceeds to speak at length exclusively about meddling by foreigner groups. It’s absurd! Question: So this is all the work of these outside groups? Answer: “No, of course not….” and he he proceeds give us just one lousy, platitudinous sentence about non-foreign dissent in Syria, namely “many Syrians are dissatisfied with many aspects of the current regime”. We need more information about the spirit of dissent than that! And Camille Otrakji doesn’t have it. If he had it, he’d deliver it.

Next, he’s asked a question about “the country’s economic woes”. Scan his reply for content. You’ll see it goes off on three tangents and never tackles the question. Once again, if he’d had something substantive to say about the country’s economy he’d have said it, and the fact that he said nothing should be taken to mean he’s got nothing to say.

Question: What is the likelihood, in your opinion, that the regime can be toppled by the current opposition Camille Otrakji’s answer: “The problem with this question is that it fundamentally misunderstands the whole idea of “the Syrian regime”.” I swear to god that that’s his entire answer to that question. He proceeds to yap-yap about Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and not about Syria.

Here’s a different kind of complaint from me: Camille Otrakji says “about 150,000 Syrians has joined the protests”. On the basis of my own information and belief, that estimate is about right, I say. But if you challenged me to support that with substantive facts and data, I’d have to admit that I don’t have them; my 150,000 estimate is impressionistic. If Camille Otrakji has got an analytic method and substantive facts and data to support his 150,000 assertion, he should’ve delivered them, to get them established. Likewise, in the first half of the article he makes a number of other claims which are very correct in my view, but which he fails to adequately support, and which therefore will fail to convince people who are predisposed to taking a different view.

Posted by parvizyi | May 3, 2011, 4:18 am
Zenobia, I think that, of all the Arab countries, Tunisia has the most favorable legal conditions for the empowerment of women. Although many times co-opted by the regime, women’s movements in Tunisia have had a strong tradition in the past decades. In the same way many thought Syria was immune to revolt because of its regionally resistant alignment, I always thought Tunisia would be immune to the tide of all-invading religiosity in all the Arab countries I knew. Until about 10 years ago, when I had a conversation with a man in the extended family: an educated government staff, a-political, like everyone was supposed to be under the Ancien Regime, in his mid-40s, told me about his conflict with his young daughter, who was determined to veil, and wasn’t doing it because he, the father, explicitly forbid it. He had his own reasons to oppose religious attire, I suppose. A secular mind to start with, but also the political pressure Ben Ali’s regime put on religious minded people to hide their most ostensible symbols (beards, veils in official places, it was even forbidden for school teachers until recently).The fact is that the young girl covered her hair as soon as she turned 18. So did her mother right away.
That conversation was a mind changer for me. Later on, I have witnessed the inexorable wave of veils and prayers reaching to practically everyone, young and old. Leave the coast and its tourists behind and penetrate the interior even by 10-20 km.: you’ll notice that the use of traditional safsari is down, the veil (a range of oriental styles)is up, and unveiled women, young and old, have become the rare ones, under constant peer pressure to cover. Go to a wedding, and depending on the family, you might be the only one who’s not covered. All this to say that the social ways of Arab women can be really counter-intuitive in what seems to be the start of a post-islamist era.

Posted by mj | May 3, 2011, 4:20 am
I do not see the question of uncertainty–or what will come next–as a sufficient argument for not supporting the revolution.

Of course there is real uncertainty about it and no one–not even the regime and its supporters who want to convince us otherwise–can predict the outcome of such a complex event.

In other words, it is unfruitful to attempt and predict what will happen since in such complex environments (almost) everything can happen.

Posted by rm | May 3, 2011, 4:47 am
A dictionary defintion of impressionistic: “Of, relating to, or predicated on impression as opposed to reason or fact”. And impression: “a notion, feeling, or recollection, esp. a vague one.”

Posted by parvizyi | May 3, 2011, 4:51 am
Gentleman
This fact, almost to the point, and in some cases, needs further explanation on some points.
The corruption does not depend on a range, but is present at all the communities, and in Syria Men corruption are from all sects and not Alawites only, why the focus is on some Alawites note that there are people who are known thieves and saboteurs and conspirators against Syria and not on the ruling regime in Example Abdel-Halim Khaddam

Posted by houssam | May 3, 2011, 5:06 am
As a European I have been travelling as a tourist through Syria for six weeks from 14 March until 24 April 2011. I can only tell you what I have heard and witnessed. Very friendly and sweet Syrians, very open minded and intelligent. They are all fed up with the security forces, but none of them want to loose the stability Syria enjoys. They are hoping for a peaceful transition to freedom of speech! Many still see Bashar as a good candidate for leading this transition. Some consider him too weak though. He should have come sooner with lifting the emergency law and allowing free elections which he would have won by far, some say.

But hey! It is also a revolution in the Assad family! It must be a hell of a job the emerge alive out of that one…..

Posted by bossybooties | May 3, 2011, 5:08 am
The real story is Pakistan and just how high the cover-up of OBL’s whereabouts went. ISI for sure, probably Army also, and could even include the head of state. If all that is so, it means the Paks are in bed with al-CIAda and the Taliban, making the situation in Afghanistan pretty much untenable. It’s a good opportunity for Obama to pull the plug on the whole enterprise, particularly as he can plausibly claim that with OBL dead the threat is much diminished.

The whole thing is a morality tale about how messing in situations that you don’t understand very well nearly always turns out bad, from the Balkans, to Lebanon to Iraq to Afghanistan…, unless the sole aim of the whole enterprise since Kissinger is to foster the creation of a thousand Tribes with Flags in Eurasia, Africa and beyond…

For a long time, some reporting from India has claimed OBL was in Pakistan courtesy of ISI. Additionally, it was said that OBL had kidney condition requiring dialysis and that this was done in clinics in Pakistan with the knowledge of Pak authorities, few hundred meters from the Pakistani military academy, the equivalent of West Point in USA…

Making Afghanistan into a Wahhabistan is a Pakistani and Saudi project, and If I understand OBL’s life story correctly his first frustration was with an unreformed and utterly corrupt Royal House in Saudi Arabia! And my understanding is that it still is unreformed. So how many other despicable OBL’s will Saudi Arabia be allowed to generate for al-CIAda’s Machiavellian planners before they run out of oil?

Posted by HK | May 3, 2011, 5:22 am
Here’s another example of Camille’s mere attitudinizing, his empty handwaving mentality.

Averroes #40 says: “I worry about one thing, and that is if the regime does not end up offering meaningful and genuine reforms (as defined and accepted by most Syrians living in the country).”
Camille’s entire reply #46: “Reforms will come soon, I am convinced.”

The mere fact that Camille personally is convinced should be of no value to you or to Averroes. Rather, what should be of value is the basis on which anyone such as Camille and Averroes is convinced. The right way for Camille to have replied to Averroes would be: “Reforms will come soon, because….” But actually the Syrian prime minister has said within the last few days that reforms are coming. And Bashar recently told Erdogan the same thing, as reported by Erdogan on Turkish TV yesterday. And Averroes knows that. So the right way for Camille to have replied, if he had actual information that Averroes doesn’t have, would’ve been: “Meaningful and genuine reforms, as defined and accepted by most Syrians living in the country, will come soon, because….” And the fact that Camille didn’t deliver that information (originally or later) means it’s a good bet that Camille doesn’t have that information.

Posted by parvizyi | May 3, 2011, 5:28 am
NOTE: I just released 11 new comments out of moderation that were posted between last night and this morning. They are scattered throughout the comment section, so be sure to look out for them.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | May 3, 2011, 5:44 am
Also, Alex, I am really not out there to get you, or to blemish your morality, in fact when I wrote:

I will not argue about the morality of your position, because arguably, it may stand some morality/ethics test in the sense that, if one accepts your premise, it may result in preventing a civil war in the short term but in manners not that different from the morality of paying ransom to save the life of a hostage.

I was really trying my best to give you (regime supporters), and the reluctant others a life line. Please read it carefully. I do not know the exact name of the ethical dilemma described above, but it does exist and ethicists, to my limited knowledge, do not have a unique answer.

Posted by Off the Wall | May 3, 2011, 5:48 am
Maysaloon,

I tried to read your post, but it’s difficult with the black back-ground , and dark writing.

Folks in USA, Canada and the Empire at large, are swallowing this swill hook, line and sinker. Patriotic Canadians should bemoan the reelection of the Ziocon Stephen Harper this time with a majority. Now I truly fear for Canada, the people are as dumb as those who celebrate the alleged assassination of the despicable Wahhabi, Osama bin Laden. Canada is turning into the US faster than the blink of an eye!

Posted by HK | May 3, 2011, 6:42 am
Now that OBL of al-CIAda is buried in the Arabian Sea;
” America can focus on bringing the people that planted the explosives in the WTC buildings I, II & 7 to justice, starting with the monster Dick Cheney and his COG team who orchestrated this charade wall to wall since 2000.”

http://youtu.be/4VBUOo2isRM

9/11 FDNY Chief of Safety, Albert Turi Describes Bombs And Secondary Explosions Killing Responders.

Posted by HK | May 3, 2011, 7:07 am
#153 HK,

”Canada is turning into the US faster than the blink of an eye!”

It is true that Harper is changing Canada but he will have a constitutional crisis on his hands for this coming mandate. Quebec voted NDP because they mistrust liberals and they fear the right turn that Harper is imposing, little by little on Canada. The next thing they will do is:

1. Regret the vote for the NDP;
2. Vote massively for their separatist provincial party provoking a referendum on Quebec sovereignty;

Ontario who voted Harper this time around, will hate him for this and they will turn to the liberals again.

The Canadian liberal party must now rebuild itself and rebuild the center that was destroyed by Harper’s partisan politics. Meantime, we have to do with ultrazionist Harper.

Posted by Sophia | May 3, 2011, 7:22 am
HK,

Why is Osama bin Laden “despicable”? Is he a “Ziocon”? Is he not enough or too Muslim for you? Is his skin color too brown? Does he eat gefilte fish?

Posted by Akbar Palace | May 3, 2011, 7:28 am
Sophia,

Wow!!! Harper Ultrazionist? Now that takes the cake. You can not take the old ghetto mentality out of you. What’s so wrong about Harper who DID BTW get an clear majority?

Posted by danny | May 3, 2011, 7:38 am
Danny,

Anyone who recognizes the State of Israel or anyone confronting Arab despots and their Islamic terrorist buddies is a Zionist.

That means about 5000 people in the world aren’t Zionists.

I didn’t realize how popular we are.

Posted by Akbar Palace | May 3, 2011, 8:10 am
Zenobia
I think your assessment of the correlation between religion and economic status is incorrect. Neither of us have any data to confirm or deny. I lived through the MB uprising in the early 80s in one of the most affected cities. Most of the MBs were doctors, engineers and university students. Many were very well to do. Also, you forgot the merchant class that is quite rich and very conservative. I think there is definitly a connection between depravation and religion, however, this is not only lack of money, it is also lack of freedom and hope in the future.

Posted by Sheila | May 3, 2011, 8:33 am
Obama is a slimier carbon copy of George W. Bush. This contradiction is the Achilles’ heel of the national program of psychological warfare aimed at the American people and the rest of humanity.

The utterly corrupt US Ziocon government, especially the military-intelligence wing, has zero credits for trustworthiness. They are the masters of the infamous White House Murder INC, for decades. Who’s to say this OBL Hollywoodian charade isn’t some kind of Psy-Op, like the staged Jessica Lynch rescue or the orchestrated toppling of Saddam’s statue? Now they are saying he’s been buried at sea. How convenient! After the dust settles from whatever False Flag attack is planned next, perhaps more people will recall these new lies in the chain of constant lies that have led the Zioconned USA from one war to the next war, to the next assassination by the infamous White House Murder INC, since 2000.

US Democracy has been overthrown from within by the corporate shadow government thereby establishing the marriage of government to the Corporate Empire. That marriage is defined as FASCIST, and American Democracy is DEAD!

The US sheeple live under a secret, lying and murderous fascist government who is in an economics/genocidal war with the American People, Iraqi People, Pakistani People, Libyan People, and really, the rest of the World that is not under their central banking and Big Oil control and dictatorship!

The American Corporate and government unpunished FRAUD reigns supreme while the Free Press has become a controlled propaganda machine. At least they ponder that if this is that way it will fuel further “conspiracy theories” for Susstein to debunk and demonize… How come that the sons of Saddam Hussein were kept without burial for 11 days and shown to the public in clear photos…?
While I am very aware of the lackey nature of corporate press, I am still in cases like this still astonished of their lack of questioning what the authorities say, despite 9/11 shenanigans and the huge Truth movement, of which they are fully aware.

9/11 was an inside job wall to wall, and at the time of the CIA attack, Osama Ben Laden, a known CIA agent, was in Dubai under a kidney machine in an American Hospital, receiving dialysis treatment and like all people in that situation, he had a very short life expectancy. Yes, we know that the CIA made phony Osama Ben Laden videos but in all probability; he died years ago. His US official death yesterday is probably for their purpose of reinvigorating Al-CIAda in MENA by spurring on the fight to justify their illegal wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBsLvL5sZkw&feature=player_embedded

But, It seems the psy-op may have yielded unexpected bonuses even the planners didn’t count on. Reported in the Guardian: “Hamas praises Osama bin Laden as Holy Warrior”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/hamas-osama-bin-laden?intcmp=239

Hamas is incredibly stupid–and of course plays right into Israel’s hands. As always since its inception by MOSSAD, it is in many respects a sad commentary on Palestinian dis-unity and utter collaboration with the Ziocons. “A nation of morons, a world really.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fpBPVkpmoeg

http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2011/04/26/why-us-and-nato-fed-detainees-to-afghan-torture-system/

We are all force fed a continuous daily diet of total BS because of the kosher control of the world media and “our” elected traitors in both houses of Congress and throughout the UKUSA Alliance.

Posted by HK | May 3, 2011, 8:42 am
Thanks Sheila,
you would know more than I regarding this particular situation. As I said – I am making some sweeping generalization. In general in america – higher education leads to more liberalism (social- not necessarily economic). And I think this holds true for many places in the world. But – other factors may negate that – including other forms of repression i would guess.
Notice also – that in the new private ‘universities’ opening up – the emphasis is on the functional studies – engineering, technology, medicine and the like, but not on the humanities and social sciences, as it these are not relevant to a society and may even be antithetical to the goals of the gov’t in encouraging an educated class.

Posted by Zenobia | May 3, 2011, 8:55 am
Sheila.

I agree with you that the relationship is a lot more complex than the economic one. However, what is the implication of your final point?

it is also lack of freedom and hope in the future.

If, as the Status-Quo supporters (of whom I assume you are one) tell us that things are getting more “conservative”, and if you indeed one can pin this on lack of freedom and hope in the future, wouldn’t this suggest that the Assad regime is in fact part of the problem?

Posted by Gabriel | May 3, 2011, 8:56 am
Camille,
well then we want the same thing. but at what cost and by what methods do we get to that place.
I am not willing to impose it by force – and it seems like you are if you support repressive methods.
I think you can only genuinely get there by allowing free debate and an open system.
It seems like you have said previously and imply now – that you can’t tolerate that – because basically Islam as a religion cannot be trusted to function in a democratic field. Conservative Muslims are not capable of restraint from imposing their ways on others and trying to dominate.
This is I am guessing presumably in your view – is in contrast to Christians.
Last time I checked in America- fundamentalist Christians are constantly trying to impose their value system and personal beliefs into the political system in ways that will inhibit the freedoms of others. I just think this has nothing to do with the particular religion in question.
however, I think secularism has to be evolved to and its value understood, not imposed through violence. This is where the backlash begins.

Posted by Zenobia | May 3, 2011, 9:17 am
Gabriel,
Please read my posting #109 to understand my position. I am not with the government. I was 14 years old when the MB uprising happened the the 80s. I am from one of the hardest hit cities. I remeber waking up in my bed and seeing two mukhabarat guys standing near my bed and sifting through my books and my father standing by trying to calm me down. Our house was “searched” three times. We collected bunches of bullet cases from our balcony. I know first hand what the regime in Syria is capable of.
All I am saying is that I understand where the people standing by the government are coming from, even if I fundamentally disagree with them. It is a lot easier for us living outside the country to call for the fall of the regime. For those living in Syria, it means chaos, a lot more killings, and a very uncertain future. I argue that this is bound to happen one day and there is always a price to pay for freedom. Postponing the inevitable is not going to make it any easier or less bloody. It is time to take a stand.
My heart bleeds for all the dead, be it unarmed civiliand or armed mukhabarat. They are all our people.

Posted by Sheila | May 3, 2011, 9:50 am
Bravo Camille , it is the best comprehensive analysis I have ever read , even if it contains some wishfullthinking on your part and we all felt the same way at some point . I like the brief comment and I quote”The Syrian regime, and only the Syrian regime, REALLY know how the Levant and Mesopotamia work” if I may add that a lot of people in Syria , Jordan , Lebanon , Irak and Palestine would also know how it works and they can relate to this comment.

unfortunately I am a little pessimistic about the prospects , not because I don’t trust that the Syrian government will address the concerns of the silent majority of the population but sometimes just the shear force of inertia becomes very hard to stop and it can overpower a strong regime even if not all the opposition demands are well intended.

Posted by Riad | May 3, 2011, 10:19 am
parrhesia #115
what a bunch of haughty crap.
I think the interview sounds nice and sensible too, but high form of academic research???? you must be kidding.
nobody here is engaging in that – including “Alex”…(clearly you must be a fan from another unmentionable blog site)
I don’t think he knows what the word hermeneutic means.

I think the interview was very good… so “not extremist” and a “moderate opinion” as Samar T up there at #104 wrote. yes, it looks kind of reasonable doesn’t it.

Except…. one starts to look a little closer….especially at some of those phrases in bold (thx QN)…. and words coming up like ‘minority’ ‘majority’ ‘vulnerability’ and ‘salafi’… and we scratch the surface, and … and…. there is the distinct smell of some kind of bigotry emanating…..hmmm… what is that doing there….in this seemingly sensible article…

uhp! Bad Vilbel is right, it just didn’t quite pass the smell test.

Posted by Zenobia | May 3, 2011, 10:23 am
The amount of aggressiveness is astounding! And what is more surprising is the unwillingness to accept an opinion that is not totally confirm to their extreme level of negativity!
Just wondering how many of the commentators are really in Syria following the events here,interacting with taxi drivers, merchants, teachers, business men, employees, etc… ? Seeing how every single one of us wakes up in the morning hoping the day passes by calmly? That now after we delivered the message of our demands, the rest of us will refrain from going out to the streets , that the government will be wiser in dealing with the problem so we may go back to our lives and move towards a brighter future?
What I read in this article is much more conform to what a very important majority of us Syrians feel and are living each single day over here, than what the emphasis others have been putting on one particular side (moved by different drives among them sometimes a very negative one: that of vengeance).
It is primordial to understand that Silence sometimes says much more than words and actions.
And the silence of a majority has been mostly unjustly ignored until now.
So I address a big thank you to “Qifa Nabki” and to his guest Mr. Otracji!

Posted by Samar. T | May 3, 2011, 10:24 am
Unfortunately, after the OBL saga the hunt for a new “most wanted” Ziocon bogeyman has surely begun. Bashar Assad’s regime seems like the most likely candidate until some other obscure Wahhabi/Salafist/Takfiri terrorist can be adequately promoted to fill the role, in order to keep fostering hundreds of Tribes with Flags in Eurasia and beyond, to serve the outlandish PNAC designs of Full Spectrum Dominance.

Posted by HK | May 3, 2011, 10:37 am
Yes,i would like to thank Qifa Nabki and his guest Mr. Otrakji also – for such a great opportunity to respond.

Posted by Zenobia | May 3, 2011, 10:43 am
HP, QN,

Please see ‘interesting’ comment #15!!!

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/?p=9517#comments

Posted by iceman | May 3, 2011, 11:02 am
Apparently some Israeli officials in the government no longer ‘fear’ the change taking place in the Arab World. Ehud Barack is even predicting the end of the Assad regime and encouraging Israelis not to fear change in Syria,

اقتراب النهاية
في سياق متصل قال وزير الدفاع الإسرائيلي إيهود باراك إن نظام الرئيس السوري “يقترب من لحظة يفقد فيها السلطة”، وذلك تعليقا على المظاهرات التي تعم عددا من المدن السورية وتطالب بإسقاط النظام.

وأضاف باراك في حديث للقناة العاشرة بالتلفزيون الإسرائيلي الليلة الماضية إن استخدام الأسد للقوة ضد شعبه يعجل بسقوط حكمه، وإن إسرائيل “يجب ألا تخشى التغيير” في سوريا.

وتابع “أعتقد أن الأسد يقترب من لحظة يفقد فيها السلطة.. الوحشية المتصاعدة تحشره في الزاوية، كلما زاد عدد القتلى تراجعت فرصه للخروج من المأزق”.

وقال باراك أيضا “حتى إذا توقف عن قتل الناس، لا أرى إمكانية لاستعادة الثقة فيه.. لا أعرف ما إذا كان سينهي دوره خلال شهر أو شهرين.. قد يتعافى، لكني لا أعتقد أنه سيظل على حاله، وأعتقد أن مصيره يتجه في نفس مسار الزعماء العرب الآخرين”.

وأضاف “يجب ألا تجزع إسرائيل من إمكانية تغيير الأسد”، مؤكدا أن الثورات التي يشهدها الشارع العربي ضد الأنظمة “تنطوي على وعود وتطلعات كبيرة على المدى الطويل” للأجيال القادمة في إسرائيل.

وذكرت جماعات مدافعة عن حقوق الإنسان أن نحو 560 مدنيا على الأقل قتلوا بأيدي قوات الأمن، وإن المئات اعتقلوا منذ بدء الاضطرابات في مدينة درعا جنوب البلاد يوم 18 مارس/آذار الماضي.

واعتبر باراك أن التغييرات التي تجري في الدول العربية هذه الأيام “تضع نهاية لنظم الحكم الشمولية”، مشيرا إلى أن “تحقيق ديمقراطية مستقرة سيحتاج وقتا”.

Posted by iceman | May 3, 2011, 11:09 am
iceman,

Ehud Barack is Israel’s Walid Jumblatt. I’ll give you one example:

In 2000 told the producers of a PBS documentary about an Israeli cabinet meeting that discussed possible responses to the first Palestinian intifada (1987). Mr. Barak said:

(watch it at 2:20)

“Some of the ministers made horrifying suggestions … send in the tanks, kill a thousand and it will collapse, order will be restored to Israel. But we knew if we killed a thousand it will get worse, and we will be branded war criminals”

Yet in 2008, the same Ehud Barak led his troops into Gaza, killing in the process 1350 Palestinians, and as he predicted in 1987, it did get worse and he was branded a war criminal.

Posted by Alex | May 3, 2011, 12:15 pm
Alex,

Just to be clear.

1) I did not describe your personal opinion as laughable. I, like others, appreciate the fact that someone is willing to post a contrarian piece of opinion in “hostile territory”.

2) I did however, find the Syrian regime’s propaganda stories as laughable. Simply because they are. Claiming that people are out on the street to celebrate rainfall after a drought is pretty damn laughable. Don’t you agree? And this coming from the official Syrian TV station. It is incredibly hard for me to take any other assertions made by such a regime seriously, when they are so insulting to my intelligence.

3) I tried to dissect your points in a common sense and rational manner, pointing out the inconsistencies in the narrative and the somewhat tortuous logic and leaps required to arrive to some of your conclusions. I stand by my critique. I did, however, make it clear that I had no way of proving or disproving some of those assertions on the ground, but rather, that I rely on what I consider common sense, in arriving to my conclusions.

I hope none of this is taken personally or that it would discourage you or others from continuing to share your opinions with us.
After all, we tolerate HK here…we could tolerate anyone!

Posted by Bad Vilbel | May 3, 2011, 12:47 pm
” Ehud Barack is Israel’s Walid Jumblatt.”
Alex,
They are twins and together with the Assad Mafia, they are first cousins and on a first name basis since 1973, when the Assads sold the Golan to the Ziocons. Stop dreaming and popping all these YouTube devices to attempt a defense for the indefensible.

Posted by HK | May 3, 2011, 12:48 pm
Ehud Barak says it clearly, Israel is for regime change in Syria:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/barak-assad-nearing-end-of-reign-in-syria-1.359584

As Barak is Israel’s defense minister, I can safely say that this means the change I have been yearning for in the Israeli security establishment has arrived. It is basically reaching the same conclusions I have been advocating for years.

Alex,

According to even Hamas, at least half the people killed in Gaza were Hamas fighters. Furthermore, the border with Gaza has been much more quiet since 2008. Where has Barak been branded a war criminal? Only with the people that are against anything Israel does.

Barak is a great man even though I don’t always agree with him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Barak
He was a very brave and creative soldier:
“During his service as a commando in the elite Sayeret Matkal, Barak led several highly acclaimed operations, such as: “Operation Isotope”, the rescue mission to free the hostages onboard Sabena Flight 571 at Lod Airport in 1972; the 1973 covert mission Operation Spring of Youth in Beirut, in which he was disguised as a woman in order to assassinate members of the Palestine Liberation Organization; Barak was also a key architect of the June 1976 Operation Entebbe, another rescue mission to free the hostages of the Air France aircraft hijacked by terrorists and forced to land at the Entebbe Airport in Uganda. These highly acclaimed operations, along with Operation Bayonet led to the dismantling of Palestinian terrorist cell Black September. It has been alluded that Barak also masterminded the Tunis Raid on April 16, 1988, in which PLO leader Abu Jihad was assassinated.[2]”

Posted by AIG | May 3, 2011, 12:53 pm
Alex,

I am ‘impressed’ by your examples as well as the ‘depth’ and ‘vigour’ of your analysis, particularly the unfounded statistical figures you throw for the purpose of creating impressionism rather than intellectual honesty, not to mention the entertaining conspiracy theories you added to our repository courtesy of the Syrian Ministry of Misinformation.

Even more apt and by the same argument, Bashar and his goons are worse war criminals having declared war on the Syrians, which we and the Western governments mistakenly refer to as ‘Syrian People’, and are now so thankful to your canny efforts and twisted logic for ‘correcting’ our ‘misconceptions’, killed in less than two months 600 innocent Syrians.

Well, Ehud at least an enemy in mind, whether you agree with him or not. What enemy do Bashar and goons have in mind? The ‘traitors’ you refer to in here in comment 15?

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/?p=9517#comments

I again ask you the same question I asked in my first comment in this thread. Is there a possibility after all said and done and the Assad regime has fallen, that Bashar, Maher, Rustom, Asef, and Bushra could be handcuffed and shipped over to Beirut for execution by a firing squad in front of the St. George? Again, we do not want the money they stole. The Syrian people can keep all the Billions these thieves stole from Syria. Just give us the criminal thugs.

Posted by iceman | May 3, 2011, 12:54 pm
Correction @176

…

Well, Ehud at least had an enemy in mind,…

Posted by iceman | May 3, 2011, 1:03 pm
For me, the surest sign that the Syrian regime is not going to stay long is the fact that it has lost the support of people like Azmi Bishara:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2907.htm

Azmi was one of the fiercest supporters of Assad and was even invited to Hafez’s funeral.

Posted by AIG | May 3, 2011, 1:39 pm
Zenobia,
If all of us syrians had as much energy built on pessimism and negativity.If all of us had this energy that seems underneath obstinated to call mainly towards one direction : “The interpretations I chose or Iwill bombard anything else”. Then Syria and it’s people would have been long lost history.
Sorry to add my voice to the commentators who found this article to be very interesting. It may be to your disappointment, but as another Syrian “on the field” I find the article to be very reprensentative of a reality no one can nor should ignore.
My question to you Zenobia if you are the “Zenobia” I read on Syria Comment. For someone who seems to be speaking in the name of us Syrians and of our demands:
when was the last time you set foot in Syria, and do you even speak the language of this country?

No offense, but you seem to have some real frustration or some personnal issue with Alex! I advise you to find yourself some other hobby and spare us syrians for once (or at least in times of crisis) your negative undemocratic attitude!

P.S:
This article may not have met the expectancy of your high intellect. However , I would like to remind you that among many articles written every day , this article was picked up by quite an interesting number of respectable sources such as, “The Guardian” , “Global Post”, etc..

Posted by Luckily not Aurelius | May 3, 2011, 1:45 pm
AIG

Bishara sold his soul to the devil,,, AL JAZEERA, he is a routine commentator there , paid, i believe, by them,

Posted by norman | May 3, 2011, 1:48 pm
Norman,

He used to defend Assad on Al Jazeera, what happened? And when he was frequently visiting Damascus and speaking positively of Assad, perhaps it was at that period that he sold his soul to the devil? Perhaps he was paid to be part of the Assad PR campaign?

Azmi is an honest person that speaks his mind. I rarely agree with him, but it is obvious that his change of mind is significant and indicative of the massive loss of support for the Syrian regime in the Arab world.

Posted by AIG | May 3, 2011, 1:54 pm
AIG,

He was only welcomed in Syria because he was an Israeli member of parliament, not for anything else and after he lost that he was shunned by Syria, he is taking revenge.

Posted by norman | May 3, 2011, 2:02 pm
It would be great if we try to keep the focus on the ideas, the principles and historical facts (whenever possible).

Personal attacks add no value to the discussions. We might agree to disagree but let’s leave it at that.

Peace 🙂

Posted by Nabil | May 3, 2011, 2:02 pm
Dear parrhesia #115

Many thanks for your kind words. I will agree with Zenobia that this is not academic research, but I hope it is logical and all the links I provide are the result of some kind of “research”. Those who did not click on every link are missing a lot. But it is a long and boring interview already, so I understand you did not have the time to check the links.

And she is also right that I forgot what the word hermeneutic means 🙂 until I Googled it five minutes ago.

I did publish three papers in peer refereed journals (Psychology and computer user interface design)

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/5785880/openness-to-experience-an-hci-experiment

But you correctly summarized my objectives.

I hope to conclude that when I woke up this morning and read the new comments that Elias (Dr. Qifa Nabki) released today, I was reminded again of how wrong it is to avoid hearing, and respecting, other people’s points of view.

When Joshua posted a link to this post, readers of Syria Comment showed up here which challenged, I hope, some of yesterday’s conclusions that were a typical display of groupthink which limited your ability to realistically appraise alternative views that I tried to present.

For presenting the views of the silent majority of Syrians (Samar T. being one example) I was called a coward who had no moral compass … and strong hints that I hate Muslims or that I am only interested in protecting minority rights at the expense of progress and freedom.

Posted by Alex | May 3, 2011, 2:07 pm
Historically speaking, when did a dictator really implemented reforms?

Posted by Mohammed Maroun | May 3, 2011, 2:21 pm
Dear Bad Vilbel,

In my answers above, I actually linked to the “thank god for rain” clip on You Tube as an example of the silly PR on Syrian television, I hope you noticed that.

But I have many more lies from the revolutionaries … not all they post (as Zenobia suggested she understood my opinion) but many.

So we are definitely not getting an upgrade if we flip to the revolutionaries.

One of the most alarming things their admin posted said “We know that 99.99% of the Syrian people support us”

THose of you how liked Bashar’s 97% approval rating in 2007, will love the revolution’s 99.99% approval rating that they already claimed!

I will send the screen shot to Qifa Nabki.

Dear “Luckily not Aurelius” … Thank you for your support.

Zenobua has been to Syria two years ago, I have not been there for much longer 🙂

But you are right that the fact she does not understand Arabic is a limitation … you can’t pick the subtle (or even the not so subtle) nuances in what Syrians (or Saudis or Egyptians) say or write in Arabic.

There is no personal issue I hope.

Posted by Alex | May 3, 2011, 2:23 pm
Norman,

There are many Israeli MPs that are not welcome in Syria. Only strong supporters of the Assad regime are welcome, and that is why Azmi Bishara was welcome. He has not changed his mind because of the way the regime treats its own people, and you can be sure that many in the Arab world feel like him.

Posted by AIG | May 3, 2011, 2:26 pm
“He has not changed his mind because of the way the regime treats its own people”

OF course I meant:
He HAS changed his mind because of the way the regime treats its own people

Posted by AIG | May 3, 2011, 2:27 pm
Alex,

I hate to harp on this subject. But for the most part, I don’t think that your article was treated with groupthink or dismissed outright based on an impression that you were sectarian, or whatever.
The issue many of us dissected in your article was the somewhat inconsistent logic. It is somewhat disingenuous to say that your article was dismissed because of pre-existing biases or groupthink. I saw several very logical deconstructions of your assertions. Maverick, Gabriel, iceman, danny and others made a very rational analysis of your article, quoting your inconsistencies very clearly. That’s a pretty far cry from “groupthink”.
We may agree to disagree on a fact that neither of us can prove or disprove (who fired on the Syrian military). But it’s a bit insulting to simply dismiss the rebuttals here as “groupthink”.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | May 3, 2011, 2:27 pm
From my experience reading the SC archives in which our ‘enlightened’ interviewee is a moderator, I have noticed the following:

1) The most powerful engine driving that site is the herd mentality managed and manipulated by a select chorus chief and most influential among its members are: The interviewee himself, Why-Discuss, Jad, Norman, and few others.

2) These are die-hard Baathists or Baathists supporters and are well versed in the demagogic ‘arts’ of the so-called party.

3) Their usual method is a typical totalitarian method which relies on hounding any dissenter to either absolute acquiescence or eventual ostracism.

4) They use the excuse of freedom of expression and contrarian points of view to achieve the above aims, nullifying thereby any intellectual benefits from a so-called debate, reducing it to outright propaganda and a mouthpiece for the totalitarian regime in this part of the world.

5) The same methods are beginning to seep into this blog as a result of this piece of crap. The interviewee as we can see ‘summoned’ the help of the cheerleaders who appeared here all of a sudden to chore up their beleaguered ‘idol’ and chief ‘rhetorician. He apparently cannot stand on his own merits.

6) The interviewee attempted to rebut few commentators at the beginning, but eventually gave up resorting instead to exchanging mutual congratulatory notes with like-minded buddies called on for the battle from the ‘wild farm’ of the ‘poor’ U of O professor.

6) There were quite few excellent rebuttals of the interviewee based strictly on content of the interview, see for example parvizyi, BV, Zenobia and others. BV even went to a great length expressing his objectivity on the matter which was very apparent in his original comment.
7) In my humble opinion, steps should be taken to avoid descending with this site to a level equal to that taking place on another blog.
8) Should a debate be allowed to be hijacked by a herd mentality? Quantity of comments does not necessarily reflect positively on a blog such as this.
9) I am not calling for censorship in 8. It is just an expression of an observation that ‘we’ know is taking place somewhere else.

10) The interviewee has proven himself selective in his responses that have been strictly reduced to the type mentioned in item 6.

Posted by iceman | May 3, 2011, 3:00 pm
Bad Vilbel,

One can come up with logical deconstructions and find any opinion suffering from inconsistent logic.

I was merely observing that the Syria Comment visitors left mostly the opposite type of impression from what most of you here expressed the day before.

Are they not able to detect inconsistencies like the rest of you can?

If you want to leave aside our preferences and biases, we could easily criticize the US for not giving us solid proof that they really killed what’s his name, just like we want proof from the Syrians that they are not shooting their own 90 soldiers and officers.

In the old days, my father used to listen to “Radio Monte Carlo” and BBC Arabic service. And for that generation, they used to believe (most of) what they hear. Now we all feel everyone owes us photos and videos and proof that those videos are real …

At the end … More often than not our biases dictate how we use our cognitive resources to reach conclusions that help us avoid cognitive dissonance.

Posted by Alex | May 3, 2011, 3:01 pm
Luckily not Aurelius,

I don’t speak for Syrians, I really don’t know where you get that from.
Second, what are you saying, I was soooo excited to have Camille write his column. And I find it fascinating. I would be really disappointed if he hadn’t written it. Isn’t that apparent? I said thank you.

Third, I am not claiming any great expertise. Never have. So I am not sure why you are harping on my ‘credentials’ so to speak. The writer of the post is the one being put up as an expert, so- the burden is on him, not me.
If you notice, the only thing I made opinions about in terms of saying “syrians think this or this” i stated clearly were issues that I observed when I was there and from my family – that’s it. I was there in 2005 and 2007, but Camille is the one making statements about what the entire country of people thinks…. so again, i think the burden is on him to justify these opinions.

As for negativity, there are a lot more negative people on this blog than me! why harp on me. I am not calling for anybody’s head on platter to be ‘shipped’ to Lebanon.
I was actually really quite optimistic till I saw the tanks come out – and the machine gun fire. And the guy with his face missing. That was enough for me to draw a line. And I haven’t heard any convincing logic to explain or justify any of that. NONE. Sorry if that is ‘negative’… but so is being getting shot.

I really don’t think you need to defend Camille – i think he knows what he was in for. And he has done his own emotional bullying of me (and others) lately to accept his opinions – so i think we are even in that regard.

Posted by Zenobia | May 3, 2011, 3:48 pm
Alex,

The fact remains that it is the regime that is blocking the free press from covering the news. Why is that? What are they afraid of?

Posted by AIG | May 3, 2011, 3:49 pm
Alex, whether you like it or not you are siding and defending oppression. At least you have to agree with this.

But for many of us here human life, dignity, and freedom are invaluable chips which cannot be trumped for stability or some such principle.

We are talking here about an asymmetric situation where all the power lies with one side and this side is behaving like a killing machine. The person who has power has moral responsibility too.

Since we all agree oppression in itself is bad. And if we can avoid bad or harm by refraining from siding with oppression we should do it. I wish you could explain to me how you deal with this moral dilemma.

Posted by rm | May 3, 2011, 3:51 pm
Azmi Beshara is most likely working for Israeli intelligence all along. The stories of his indictment and various law suits against him were concocted by Aman & Mossad in order to give him cover. When he first approached Hezbollah after “fleeing” Israel he was well received and he apparently provided some useful tid-bits to prove his “worth” for the Resistance.
Very soon afterwards, Azmi Bishara started asking for large sums of money in return for information. After the 2006 war the relationship with Azmi Bishara soured badly because Hezbollah was able to prove and verify that the guy was a fake, providing false and misleading information. Hezbollah does not trust Azmi Bishara at all anymore, and considers him more than suspect, just like Abdel-bari Atwan…, even if they are sometimes hosted on Al-Manar in some talk-shows.

Posted by HK | May 3, 2011, 4:36 pm
Alex,

Again, we’re gonna have to agree to disagree here.

You’re absolutely right that we cannot prove that the US killed you-know-who, or didn’t. That’s why we apply the smell test and use common sense.
Will we ever know 100%? Probably not. But putting aside marginal conspiracy theories, one can usually find a good middle-of-the-road explanation for things.
The more contradictions in the story, the less likely I am to believe it. Does it mean it’s necessarily false? I don’t know. But generally, in most courts of law, most justice systems, and in most people’s every day minds, more contradictions = less plausible.

If I suspect my kid broke a vase while I was away, and I ask him. He may tell me he wasn’t home that day. Maybe I cannot corroborate that. Now if he tells me later that he caught Oprah on TV that afternoon, i start getting suspicious, because this contradicts his previous statement about not being home. And so on…The more contradictions, the less the credibility of the person in question.

Which brings me to the Syrian regime. Let’s put aside the details of who shot at the military, and who paid for what troublemakers. It’s immaterial to this particular point.
What I see is:

1) A regime that bans outside media (so there is no way to verify anything and one has to take their word for the narrative). Why? This right here is the mother of all credibility killers.

2) People are dying. The regime claims otherwise. Except in “isolated incidents”.

3) People are being arrested. The regime claims otherwise (Except in isolated cases).

4) Journalists are disappearing.

5) Some cities are surrounded by tanks. Why? Is there an insurrection in Deraa? If there is, then why isn’t the regime saying so? Why does it continue to claim it’s dealing with foreign operatives (which typically does not require surrounding an entire city and cutting it’s internet access).

6) The regime claims that it has no problem with peaceful protests but claims a 99.9% approval rating (so there really should be no protests in the first place?). But then we hear that there are indeed protests, and that these really are the work of some malcontents. So which is it? 99% or not? And why not let them protest? Because this rule doesn’t apply to “Salafis”?

7) We are shown protests with ridiculous talk of celebrating the rain…No comment on this one. So peaceful protests by salafis aren’t cool. But it’s ok to rejoice about the rain. I guess that’s what Syrian intellectualism has devolved to? Rain dancing. More serious issues cannot be discussed. But you still have the weather.

And the list goes on.

Even if I was a martian, with no bias. Arriving on earth for the first time, and taking stock of these events. I’d say the contradictions abound and the credibility of that narrative is quite suspect.

Can I prove it? No.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | May 3, 2011, 5:00 pm
To add more disclosure and set the record straight: I have had many many years now of agreement about a great many things with Camille. So, it is not as if I would dismiss everything he says, not even close. I was always in full appreciation even until now – and now – to hear his thoughts and analysis, even if I don’t think he is some amazing expert or academic – he works really hard at collecting information.

I didn’t comment on many many of the points in the above interview – either because they were adequately critiqued by others but also because I have no great disagreement with his take on things. I don’t dispute his vast data or take on geo-political dynamics in the region and all that – even if I don’t think that the conclusion that this means only the Assad gov’t can handle representing Syria and defending its interests and sparing with the world. But his facts are not particularly off. And I don’t have the knowledge to dispute that in any way.

Additionally and more importantly, I don’t know if he can say what the “silent majority is thinking and wants. How do we know that there even IS a majority. Maybe there is a lot of varied opinions and feelings. We can’t even go in and find out.
But – I am NOT going to argue at all that Bashar Assad does not have support.

For the record, I think he does. But an important distinction is that I think HE PERSONALLY has the support. And not necessarily the entire government behind him, and definitely not his corrupt family and definitely not the system behind him and the security services. (this is my humble opinion based on pure observation and conversation inside Syria) So… what do we make of this split!!! It has to be both understood and interpreted, but I am certainly not equipped to do it.
I could have gone over to the dark side a long time ago and participated in blogging and writing while i was there about how really people hate Bashar,,, then are just too fearful to say so.. and all that. I was invited to do this. But I took one look at that situation during the referendum in 2007, when I was there. I walked all over downtown Damascus observing the celebrations and what not – talked to people about it. And yes, there was lots of peer pressure to coworkers and such to get out there and show your patriotic support. But, But but…. there was just no getting around the looks of sheer joy and thrill on the faces of tons of young people in celebrating their president. What can I say. These were not young people with guns to their heads or anybody coaxing them on. They seemed genuine to me – and what I understood was that they actually liked the image of their president. They believe in him. It didn’t matter that they knew that the entire system was screwed up and corrupt – or that things had been really bad in the past under his father. To my ears and eyes, they believe that he was/is different and going to save the country. He is youngish, debonair, has a cosmopolitan wife, he lived in Europe….he is mild mannered and likable. He is a personality!…And this works for a lot of young people. And they trust him … or did… and think that the future is going to be better.
who am i to argue with this? … as long as the facade seems to be real. If that is what a lot of people want then this is what they want as a leader. It is not the business of the rest of the world to decide.
I personally would never ever ever ever sit down with Eliot Abrams or anybody else in America or the West period, and start deciding we have a right to change this or intrude on it – or “free” the syrians and all that. It is nobody’s right.

However, what I am saying here is that I see as “rm” at #194 is saying – that Camille in arguing as he has – is in a moral dilemma.

Because if Syrians themselves – take to the street to express their frustration or demand for change – no matter what it is – and no matter what designation you decide they are – ‘salafists’ or any other group – it is simply unacceptable to use the force of a military and a state to suppress them by violent means.
IT also doesn’t matter if some ill-willed outside entities were egging them on for their own purposes. It was clear to me and tons and tons of other people inside and outside Syria that there were legitimate protesters, even if you can prove that there was some rogue elements that might be armed and dangerous (despite the complete lack of public evidence of this fact – i for one could imagine there might be) – It remains unjustified and unnecessary even in terms of stated goal of restoring safety to the larger population. The government is not spreading safety – they are creating more chaos and spreading fear and threat.

I do not think you, Camille lack a moral compass, but I think this defense of what is being perpetrated by the authorities in Syria – is a lapse and a temporary loss of your moral compass.

I do not think you “hate muslims”…I did not say this, and it would be a huge overstatement of my accusation. I think that your arguments and attitude betray an undiagnosed bias and prejudice. Prejudice does not have to be dramatic or extreme or involve “hate”. I don’t think you have a personal prejudice, as in you wouldn’t have a muslim to dinner. But rather your social analysis seem to focus on the limitations of allowing majority rule and a justification of the current state violence based on the (believed)affiliation of the targeted group.
I stated my observation of what you said, and so far – you didn’t rebut it. You just are bothered that I said your stance is bigoted and ethically suspect.
But you didn’t actually deny the logic you are using that I think betrays this bias.

I find it really disheartening that you won’t come out clearly and condemn the Syrian government use of violence. You are not doing that. You are saying it is rational and justified.

When you talk about the potential for what will happen if the opposition succeeded in bringing down the government – you conveyed the idea that the majority rule will be dangerous and regressive instead of progressive. Well, that majority is Sunni. And your fear is radicalization and oppression. And you are defending the Alawite fear of the same as reasonable and rational -based on historical experience according to you – and not just fear of losing advantages and power.
So, it stands to reason that you think democratic practice cannot and will not be upheld by conservative people of Islamic religion. I see this as a prejudice, even if you are not prejudiced in your personal relationships.

I said in my earlier post – that I think it is bigoted to believe that Muslims – even religious practicing and even conservatives – aren’t capable of being democratically enlightened and engage in power sharing with other religions, and run a system with minority rights and protections. Don’t you think that is a pretty sweeping generalization. And yet, it appears that is what you are believing and what you are using to defend armed suppression of legitimate citizens of Syria who are expressing the desire to oust a system that is unjust to them economically and politically.

Tell me if I am wrong. I mean – to add to my suspicion – I distinctly remember four months ago or so – you telling me that you believed that if there were increased immigration of Muslims into the United States of America, that it is seriously possible that they might attempt to achieve enough political power to change the Constitution of the United States to reflect Islamic religious beliefs. no?
To me that was nuts, and if I hadn’t pushed it out of my mind because I didn’t want to hear you say such a thing, i would have concluded that this was a pretty bad prejudice to have. But you told me that you were serious – and that you have lots of muslims you know and talk to you, and You know “how they think” and you can see that UNLIKE CHRISTIANS – they think their religion is the most correct and best and should be strengthened and – influence the Constitution presumably?
To most people, it is pretty obvious that EVERY religion thinks it is the best and most correct religion, that’s why people belong to them and stick up for them – or kill for them.
so, to allude to the somehow special danger of Islam in its attempt to impose itself on society ,to me is a prejudice.

Tell me if I am wrong. And I don’t mean say ‘you are wrong about me”…tell me that you don’t think what I have laid out – and if you don’t think these things then… why should Alawite fears be appeased by the current system of power and what could possibly justify the state’s actions of using machine gun fire on unarmed people who we see in videos that nobody thinks are fake or doctored including you.

I hope that things will actually calm down and that there will not be more uprising and instead some miracle will happen and Bashar Assad will turn into the hero many people including myself wanted him to be. But if this doesn’t happen and all hell brakes loose instead, or… a slow burn ensues with detentions and disappearances of people… and all that paramilitary scary travesty (including obvious “fragging” of one’s own soldiers) I will pray that you will be able to call a spade a spade when the time comes.

Posted by Zenobia | May 3, 2011, 5:17 pm
@ #193
AIG,

Haven’t you heard?

According to Alex ( Nothing personal here, just referring to content…just so we dont get the ‘cheerleaders” attacking me for pointing out an inconsistency.)
According to Alex, there has been a” bad history “between Journalists and the regime. The regime “does not like to be criticized.” In addition, Syria is a way too “complex” for any journalist, not to mention the editors.( God forbid an editor having a bad day)
Also, the regime does not “feel the need to communicate”. They need no reason to do what they do, because they have Syria’s best interest at hand. I mean what is 1.345% rounded off to the nearest decimal point of Syrians, armed and on a payroll know about what is good for Syria.

So please dont ask why the regime is blocking free press, it is highly justified. Im sure there are solid reasons as to why they have cut electricity and water to Der’aa aswell.

Posted by Maverick | May 3, 2011, 5:46 pm
Maverik,

Joshua Landis is at least more straight forward. He told NPR that the Christians in Syria are convinced they will be ethnically cleansed if Assad falls. All the rest is obfuscation.

Posted by AIG | May 3, 2011, 6:51 pm
Any talk of ethnic cleansing is an assumption.An assumption that is based on fear and worst case scenario.It has no causal relationship with current events.
Along with Christians, there are Alawite, Druze and other minorities that make up a considerable percentage of the population and most live in their own communities. If, lets assume Assad falls and rabid salafis and extremists run amok, they would go after the Kafirs before the “people of the book”.
What I’m getting it, is that I believe it is a long shot for any ethnic cleansing to happen. The extremists need to be of a high number, highly organized and well armed…and have to be left alone by the Arab world and the international community.Highly unlikely.
I’m not denying these fears, but I am against pro-Assad supporters taking advantage of ‘obfuscation’ to further their cause and coming up with all sorts of far fetched nonsense.

Posted by Maverick | May 3, 2011, 7:13 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Pingback: Maysaloon - ميسلون: "Team Syria" get a boost from Spin-Doctor - May 3, 2011

	Mark Gailard on Slim Gaillard and his Mysterio…
	Rami on Aoun and the Future
	Sam Berlin on Slim Gaillard and his Mysterio…
	Jim Hamra on Slim Gaillard and his Mysterio…
	nickbiddlenoe on The Saga Continues: Nicholas N…

Qifa Nabki

Search

Talking about a Revolution: An Interview with Camille Otrakji

Discussion

727 thoughts on “Talking about a Revolution: An Interview with Camille Otrakji”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Are you just gonna stand there and not respond?

Browse archives

And the people say…

Top Posts

Follow via email

Qifa Nabki

Search

Talking about a Revolution: An Interview with Camille Otrakji

Rate this:

Share this:

Related

Discussion

727 thoughts on “Talking about a Revolution: An Interview with Camille Otrakji”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Are you just gonna stand there and not respond?

Browse archives

And the people say…

Top Posts

Follow via email