“Condoleezza Rice in the Middle East,” the Economist

This excellent Economist article recounts the problems Rice faces in trying to persuade friendly Arab governments to embrace America‘s agenda in the region and turn against Syria, Hamas, or Hizbullah to the degree required by Washington. Rice is now calling America‘s enemies the “resistance” block and not the “Shiite Crescent,” “Axis of Evil” or “Bloc of Bad” as Washingtonians used to – a reflection, perhaps, of Rice’s new realism? If so, she has a long realism row to hoe. Things will get a lot more real before she gets a deal.

Just last week Rice told the Wall Street Journal that the US would be punishing Syria for its stand with Iran.  In a series of interviews published by the Wall Street Journal just before she left for the Middle East, Secretary Rice explained how America would punish Syria for its bad actions in Lebanon with tougher sanctions. “We’re going to have to look at tougher measures if Syria continues to be on the path that it’s on,” Rice said. Syria had effectively entered into an alliance with Iran, which she also accused of destabilizing the region. “The Syrians look as if they’ve made their choice and their choice is to associate with extremist forces in Iran, not with their … traditional partners like the Arab states,” she added.  

Bret Stephens on September 30 writes: “I ask [Rice] about the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, which a year ago appeared to be on the point of collapse yet today has reasserted itself in a big way in Lebanon, particularly thanks to Hezbollah’s perceived victory in the summer’s war against Israel. “This is one of those twists and turns…  I started speaking to at the beginning. I don’t think you can kind of know today the effect of Syria‘s isolation from the Arab world.” (Pressed on the subject later on, she concedes that “we’re going to have to start looking at further sanctions on Syria.”) Further sanctions. Who is she kidding? As Walid Moallem, Syria‘s Foreign minister recently said: “Tragically enough, we all end up paying the price when the decision-makers in Washington believe that they know better, and are in a better position to understand and grasp the needs and circumstances of the Arabs. They diagnose the ambitions and aspirations of the Arab in a manner tailored to their own vision,” he said. No one is going to support sanctions against Syria. The Arab states – even those angry at Syria – don’t want more sanctions. Europe doesn’t. Russia and China don’t. Why even say such things? It makes America look foolish and out of touch.makes America look foolish and out of touch.

Friends see things differently – America and the Middle East
7 October 2006
The Economist
Condoleezza Rice in the Middle East: Arab leaders, like Hosni Mubarak, agree on America’s aims but not how to get there IT ALL looked cordial enough as Condoleezza Rice toured the Middle East for the first time since this summer’s nasty little war in Lebanon. The secretary of state, adhering to the Bush administration’s habit of shunning leaders it doesn’t like, talked only to those anointed as “moderates”. Even so, behind padded doors, some hard words were exchanged. That is not surprising. The Middle East pot is more than ever brimful with sticky problems, ranging from Iran’s nuclear ambitions, to the ongoing agony of Iraq, to the humanitarian disaster of Darfur, to the shaky peace in Lebanon, to turbulence in internal Israeli politics and, never-endingly, to the misery of Palestine. So fraught is the region that Ms Rice, who on her last, wartime, visit homilised over the “birth pangs of a new Middle East”, this time talked only of a “future Middle East” where peace, prosperity and democracy would prevail.

The secretary’s tour took her to Saudi Arabia, then Cairo for a joint meeting with six Gulf foreign ministers, along with those of Egypt and Jordan, and then on for meetings with Israel’s prime minister and the beleaguered Palestinian president. Her objective was to rally allies against what is seen as the mounting challenge of the “resistance” block made up of Iran and Syria, together with their sub-state clients, Hizbullah and Hamas, and, to some extent, the recalcitrant government of Sudan.

Once seen as weak and isolated, this block has been bolstered by Hamas’s electoral win, Iran’s nuclear obstinacy and the skill and determination of Hizbullah in holding off Israel’s far more powerful army. Meanwhile, the whole notion of “resistance” to America’s perceived desire to dominate the region has gained ground among the wider Arab public. While the Hizbullah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and even Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, win popular acclaim as Robin Hood-like heroes, stalwart Arab “moderates”, such as Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan, are tarred as American puppets.

Their sense of vulnerability to such charges explains why Ms Rice’s reception in Arab capitals was relatively muted. Arab diplomats seemed as concerned to show they were not creating a new, pro-American coalition, and were not acting against anyone in particular, as they were to emphasise any positive result of their talks. Yet, aside from reflecting the current toxicity of America to Arab public opinion, this coolness also reflected diverging priorities between America and its allies.

Most Arab regimes, for instance, fully share America’s annoyance with Syria, whose meddling in Lebanon, and support for hardline factions within Hamas, are seen as damaging to stability. But whereas American policy has been to squeeze until Syria crumples, Arabs tend to accept that Syria has legitimate grievances. “We don’t think Syria‘s bullying tactics should be rewarded,” says an Arab diplomat, “but you can’t just besiege a country without providing some kind of exit option.”

No Arab leaders, except those of Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah, like the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran and they are disturbed by Iran’s backing for militant Islamist groups. But what they fear more is a clash between America and Iran that could spill onto their turf—turf that is, in the case of several Gulf states, conspicuously dotted with American military bases. If the question is to secure the oil-rich Gulf against Iranian adventurism, insist America’s Arab friends, a good first step would be to deny Iran and its rejectionist allies moral traction, by doing something about the festering Palestinian issue.

Ms Rice, aware of Arab impatience for some progress on Palestine, proffered some slim ideas, based on trying to empower President Mahmoud Abbas and persuading Israel to moderate its blockade (see next story). Her Arab allies understand that such steps may be all that can be hoped for at present. At the same time, they have lost faith with the long-held American policy of pursuing peace by incremental confidence-building measures.

“No one has the political capital left to take even the smallest step,” says an Arab official in Cairo. The only way to move, he says, is to offer a vision for a comprehensive regional settlement that would include not only Israel and Palestine, but also Syria and Lebanon. Oddly, that is precisely the idea now being floated by the 135 former foreign ministers, heads of state and Nobel prize-winners from around the world who have signed a petition calling for a regional peace conference.

Is Hizbullah Secular? James Baker Meets Syrian F.M.

James Baker, President Bush senior’s Secretary of State, announced Tuesday a week ago that his task force will meet this week with the foreign minister of Syria, against which the administration has mounted a diplomatic boycott for almost two years. The task force has already met with Damascus’ ambassador in Washington, as part of a series of meetings with Washington-based envoys from Iraq’s Arab neighbors.

Baker’s task force, called the Iraq Study Group (ISG), has also been cleared by President Bush to talk to Iranian officials. Jim Lobe writes:

Such a meeting would no doubt feed speculation here that Baker, a consummate “realist” who reportedly has been privately critical of the administration’s Middle East policies, could help tilt the balance of power within the administration in favor of fellow realists, centered in the State Department. They generally support greater flexibility in dealing with perceived U.S. foes in the region, and against right-wing hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney who have steadfastly opposed engagement with both Iran and Syria.

I have heard nothing further about the meeting of James Baker’s task force with foreign Minister Walid Mualim, but if it indeed went ahead, it will mark a significant lapse in Washington’s isolation policy toward Syria.

An article well worth reading in its entirety is the following by Nir Rosen, who is always excellent and provocative. He argues that Hizbullah is really a secular party and shouldn’t worry us. Can this be true?

Hizb Allah, Party of God 
Oct 3, 2006
By Nir Rosen

In the wake of Israel’s 33-day war with Hizballah, the 24-year-old Islamic movement has become the most popular political party in the Middle East. Here’s why that shouldn’t worry us. Over 1 million Lebanese gathered in a vast square in a southern Beirut suburb on Sept. 22 to celebrate their country’s largely successful campaign against Israel. Seyid Hassan Nasrallah, secretary-general of Hizballah, risked his life by appearing in public after Israeli leaders had sworn to kill him, and spoke to his adoring supporters in Lebanon and around the world….Surveying this massive crowd of boisterous people—the men and women, the teenagers and the small children, celebrating their identity and their steadfastness together with music—I knew this was not the stuff of religious fundamentalism or terrorism. I was struck by how the reality of Hizballah differed from its distorted image in the West. For although Hizb Allah, the Party of God, is undoubtedly of Shia origin, it is in fact a secular movement, addressing real temporal issues, its leaders speaking in a nationalist discourse, avoiding sectarianism and religious metaphors. They participate in politics, compromising and negotiating, and do not seek to impose Islamic law on others. Proof of this is readily available in Hizballah strongholds, where many of their followers are secular, supporting Hizballah because it represents their political interests and defends them.

Throughout the country, women in chadors walk beside scantily clad beauties.  Along Lebanon’s highways, or what is left of them, billboards celebrating Hizballah’s “divine victory” over Israel share advertising space with posters depicting half-naked women wearing jeans or lingerie. Hizballah may have preferences, but unlike the authoritarian leaders of the Taliban or Saudi Arabia, it does not impose them.

Nor has the movement shown a long-standing inability to reconcile with its enemies. Most strikingly, in 2000, after Israel’s withdrawal from the Lebanese territory it was occupying, the thousands of Shia and Christian collaborators suddenly found themselves vulnerable to retribution and street justice from understandably aggrieved Lebanese. On strict orders from Hizballah, however, the vast majority were not touched. Rather they were handed over to the Lebanese army, dealt with by the Lebanese government and imprisoned and amnestied prematurely, in a move that offended many Lebanese. Nevertheless, today they can be spotted in towns in the south; everyone knows who they are, and they remain unharmed. Hardly the actions of a violent fundamentalist terrorist organization.

And what was so unreasonable about Hizballah’s demands? The movement insisted it wanted Lebanese prisoners to be freed by Israel, all of Lebanon’s territory to be evacuated by Israel, and for the Lebanese army, which had never defended Lebanon, let alone its south, to come up with a national defense plan.  Thirty years of proven Israeli brutality and 60 years of Lebanese government neglect of the south gave Hizballah a raison d’etre its leadership insisted it did not want. (Continue…)

President Bashar al-Asad makes the same argument as does Nir Rosen about Hizbullah’s politics being largely secular and appealing to a cross-sectarian audience. In a recent interview with Spain’s largest newspaper, El Pais, Asad insists that Hizbullah has a secular orientation, which does not undermine or controdict Syria’s own secular policies. In response to a question about whether it is dangerous for a secular country such as Syria to support Hassan Nasrallah and Hizbullah, an “Islamic” resistance organization, President Assad responded by arguing that Nassrallah’s “political discourse and practice are secular.” He added that most of the forces allied with Nasrallah, including the Christian allies of Michel Aoun, are secular as well.

“If he doesn’t gain support from non-Muslims, he can’t be strong… He is defending a national issue and not merely an Islamic one. There is a consensus among different sects in the Arab countries on his policies and not only in Lebanon… There is no concern at all regarding this point,” president Assad asserted.

Nasrallah has reiterated in most recent speeches that he does not strive to impose sharia law on Lebanon or to establish an Islamic state. Here is what Nasrallah said in his speech of 27 August 2006, given at the conclusion of the Lebanon War this summer.

“Lebanon is a tapestry of various groups, religions, parties, and sects. It cannot be ruled as an Islamic or Christian state, nor can it be ruled as a Shiite Islamic state. These claims are US and Israeli propaganda, designed to make the Christians fear us and fear that we will impose a possible Islamic state on Lebanon. Apparently, the US and Israel want to inculcate a new fear among Sunnis that we are preparing for a Shiite state.”

Aref Dalilah suffers stroke in jail. More prisoner releases

Amnesty International has published the following report about Aref Dalilah, following a prison visit of two family members. (I thank Maureen Thomas _ [email protected] for bringing this to my attention).

It should also be mentioned that both Ali Abdullah and his son, Mohammad, were released from Prison Wednesday after completing six month terms. They had been detained in March 2006 for insulting the head of the State’s

Security Court

. All charges against them were dismissed except for the “spreading misinformation” charge, for which they served six months.

Now that the Lebanon War is over and the Asad regime finds itself strengthened, it is releasing many of the political prisoners it incarcerated earlier this year during the lead up to the War. With European foreign ministers and Israeli politicians calling for dialogue and beginning to recognize that peace in the region cannot be advanced by ostracizing Syria, it seems that Bashar no long needs to keep such a tight rein on dissent. In particular, he no longer needs to worry about the March 14, anti-Syrian crowd in Lebanon having great influence on the Syrian opposition. Ever since the US and Israel turned against their March 14 allies in Lebanon for failing to disarm Hizbullah, their influence in the region has diminished. By destroying much of the rebuilding work that Rafiq al-Hariri had accomplished over the last decade, the US and Israel have chastened the March 14 politicians and made them less keen on attacking Syria. Because it is weaker – according to the latest polls, a majority of Lebanese now want a change of government – the government has less ability to convince Syrian opposition members to ally with it.

UA 268/06        Prisoner of conscience/medical concern                

‘Aref Dalilah (m), aged around 63, former dean of the faculty of economics of Aleppo University 
 04 October 2006

Amnesty International is gravely concerned about the deteriorating health of prisoner of conscience, Aref Dalilah. According to reports, he recently suffered a stroke and is now completely numb down the left side of his body, and his left hand and foot are swollen. ‘Aref Dalilah is demanding access to medical care independent of the prison authorities, which the authorities have apparently repeatedly refused to provide in the past.    

˜Aref Dalilah was reportedly given a brain scan, but there is no information available as to the results. He has suffered from ill-health for much of his imprisonment since September 2001. In April 2002, he suffered from deep vein thrombosis (a blood clot within a deep vein which can either partially or completely impede blood flow in the vein. It has potentially serious consequences such as a fatal pulmonary embolism or blood clot in the lung).  Although it left him in urgent need of appropriate medication and specialist medical care, he was apparently returned to prison before receiving either. He also suffers from diabetes, high blood pressure and an irregular heartbeat.

He has apparently been held in solitary confinement for three years, which is likely to have had a detrimental effect on his physical and mental health. He is being held in a small cell which does not allow him to the opportunity for physical exercise.

Aref Dalilah was arrested in September 2001 after having taken part in a political seminar earlier that month in the house of parliamentarian and former prisoner of conscience, Riad Seif (see UA 226/01, MDE 24/029/2001 and updates). He is the longest serving prisoner of several pro-democracy civil society activists arrested and given custodial sentences purely for the peaceful expression of their beliefs. They were active during the so-called “Damascus Spring”, a period following the President Bashar al-Assad’s inauguration speech where he indicated an intention to increase tolerance for free speech and to allow political reforms. There followed the establishment of a number of forums where public affairs, political reforms and cultural issues were discussed which concluded with the authorities’ clamp down on this new freedom of _expression in early 2001. By the summer of that year many of the people who had taken part in these forums were arrested and sentenced to prison terms for exercising their right to freedom of _expression (see AI report Syria: Smothering freedom of _expression: the detention of peaceful critics, MDE 24/007/2002, June 2002 here. Aref Dalilah was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by the Supreme State Security Court (SSSC), whose procedures fall far short of international standards for fair trial, on charges of “attempting to change the constitution by illegal means.”

Dalilah is the last of the original “Damascus Spring” prisoner to remain in Jail. He received a 10 year sentence whereas the others received 5 year sentences. It is widely believed this was because he is an Alawi and the regime takes special umbridge at “one of their own” turning against it. A few other Damascus Spring members have been returned to jail this last year, most notably Michel Kilo and Kamal al-Labwani.

Kurds Protest; Israel Says No to Peace

Syria has released 3 Kurdish activists from jail. This move comes only days before the October 5th demonstration that is being organized on behalf of Kurdish citizenship for the 200,000 Kurds who continue to be denied full citizenship and rights in Syria. October 5 will be the anniversary of the 1962 census carried out by President Nazim al-Qudsi, which was used as the instrument for denying Kurds their rights, based on the provenance of their grandfathers and great grandfathers. President Asad has promised on several occasions that he would restore the rights and complete citizenship of the Kurds who were unfairly harmed by the 1962 census and subsequent policies, but he has refused to live up to his promises. Doubtlessly Asad believes that he can use the unfulfilled promise of citizenship as a club held over the heads of Syria’s Kurdish community to ensure their good behavior as Iraq’s Kurdish provinces gain independence. This is a silly policy and will most likely back fire because it will guarantee that Syria’s Kurds resent the Syrian state and its discriminatory policies. It will make Kurds who don’t yet long to join Kurdistan, question their attachment to the Syrian state. The Qur’an says there is “no compulsion in religion.” Nationalism is a modern form of religion. Anyone who believes that Kurdish loyalty can be won by the sword is only trying to cheat God. It is a bit like Israel trying to starve Palestinians into recognizing Greater Israel.

The national Salvation Front, run by Khaddam and Bayanouni, are calling on all Syrians to join the Oct. 5th demonstrations as an opening effort of their “new policy” of trying to build support “within” Syria. (See article copied below on Kurds) I must say that Khaddam and Bayanouni are smart to champion the Kurdish demand for full citizenship, just as they are smart to condemn Farid Ghadry’s politics of bigotry and his effort to turn Syrians against their fellow Alawis. National unity will be a winning strategy. Syrians have allowed themselves to be divided for too long. Asad has talked about promoting national unity, but on the Kurdish issue, he has made a mockery of this strategy and left a giant hole for the opposition to walk through. It is good to see that they are taking advantage of this weakness and bringing attention to government backed discrimination and racism. Turkey’s Islamic party was always much better on the Kurdish issue than were the Ataturk seculars. The Kurdish helped them win power and keep it. Asad should heed this lesson.

The Syrian government has done more than its fair share in helping refugees of many stripes – and not only Arab refugees like the Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iraqis, but also non-Arabs, such as Armenians, Assyrians, Circassians, and many more. There is no need to mistreat the Kurds – it ruins what has been Syria’s excellent record of helping others and promoting tolerance among ethnic groups and religions in the region. 

Israel does not want peace with Syria (copied from Warincontext.com)
By Gideon Levy, Haaretz, October 1, 2006

What do you call a rejection of peace that is liable to lead to war? What is the term for a state that is not even willing to sit at the negotiating table with the head of a state who publicly issues an explicit peace proposal? If there is a positive angle to the Israeli refusal to consider the Syrian president’s proposals, it is the exposure of the bitter truth: Israel does not want peace with Syria – period. No linguistic trick or diplomatic contortion can change this unequivocal fact. We will no longer be able to declare that we are seeking peace with our neighbors; we are not turning toward them for peace. In the Middle East, a new rejectionist axis has formed: Israel and the United States, which is saying “no” to Syria. Not only is Iran endangering peace in the region, Israel is too. It would be best for us to admit this.Common sense makes it difficult to understand and the heart refuses to accept how it happened that an important Arab state offered to forge a peace accord with us and we arrogantly rebuffed it. “It’s not the right time,” the statesmen in Jerusalem say. With Syria, it is not the right time. With the Palestinians, it is not the right partner. And when is the right time? Only after the next war. This type of refusal, which is liable to lead to another cycle of bloodshed, is a crime. [ complete article]

Is Israel a partner?
By Uzi Benziman, Haaretz, October 1, 2006

In the 1967 war, Jordan’s King Hussein was considered an enemy of the state of Israel. In the 1973 war, Hussein refrained from joining the combined assault of Egypt and Syria, and there are those who say that he even warned Israel about it. Twenty-one years later, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel: The enemy of 1967 and covert ally of 1973 became an overt friend.When official Israel claims to have no partners with which to establish peace, the development of the relationship with King Hussein should be placed in the public eye. The “no partner” status is reversible, and Israel can have a significant influence on its expiration date. Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat was not considered a partner in ’73, and earned the status of very desired guest in ’77. Government spokesmen in Jerusalem explain in retrospect why Sadat does not resemble Hafez or Bashar Assad, why Hussein does not resemble Yasser Arafat, why the hostile situation that Israel had with Egypt and with Jordan had the potential to change while the relationship with the Palestinians is fated to be eternally drenched in blood and Syria will remain an enemy forever. These explanations, however, ignore the Israeli side of the equation: The desire to hold onto the West Bank and the Golan Heights has a critical impact on the development of the conflict. [ complete article]

The LA Times’s Borzou Daragahi writes that “Abdullah II of Jordan, who has closely allied himself with the U.S., is accused by reformers and traditionalists alike of alienating his people. The title of the article is Jordan’s king risks Shah’s fate, critics warn.” Numerous parallels exist between the shah’s rule and that of Abdullah. “Like the shah’s SAVAK security and intelligence service, Jordan’s General Intelligence Department, now in a new hilltop complex in an Amman suburb, operates as a “subdivision” of the CIA, said Alexis Debat, a former French Defense Ministry official.” This assessment seems extreme to me, however, there can be little doubt that adhereing too closely to US policy is taking a toll on regime ligitimacy. The cost of remaining loyal to the US will grow exponentially along with the growth in suffering in both Iraq and Palestine as the true cost of Washington’s determination to continue failing policies begins to kick in.

Ibrahim Hamidi wrote an important article in al-Hayat a week ago explaining how the wall of isolation that the US has been enforcing around Syria is beginning to crumble. I could only find a French translation. Here is a bit of it.

Le mur que l’administration BUSH a tenté de construire pour isoler la Syrie au cours des dernières années commence à s’effriter. 23 septembre 2006

Le mur construit par l’administration américaine pour isoler la Syrie commence à s’effriter depuis quelques mois. Les élections espagnoles et italiennes, ainsi que la baisse de la popularité du Président CHIRAC, y ont contribué.

De plus, cette tentative d’isoler la Syrie a abouti à des résultats contraires à ceux que l’on avait escomptés. Elle a eu pour conséquence de renforcer l’alliance syro-iranienne, ainsi que le soutien de la Syrie au Jihad et au Hamas.

La visite de M. MORATINOS à Damas a eu pour effet de tourner la page de l’isolement de la Syrie. Elle a abouti à une entente sur six points :

1- La gravité de la situation au moyen-orient, mais la possibilité d’en sortir.
2- La nécessité d’inclure toutes les parties dans la recherche d’une solution.
3- L’impossibilité de la solution militaire.
4- Un cessez-le-feu immédiat qui s’est concrétisé par la 1701.
5- Le soutien à l’unité de toutes les forces politiques libanaises et du gouvernement.
6- La nécessité d’une paix juste et globale en Palestine, au Liban et en Syrie.

“The flood of the Ba’th” (taken from Mideastwire.com)

Diana Mukkaled, a regular columnist for Asharq Al Awsat, an independent pan-Arab daily, wrote in the paper’s Arabic edition on September 24 that: “The opening scene of Syrian director Omar Amiralay’s documentary ‘A Flood in Ba’th Country,’ portrays children in military attire in a classroom in a small rural village chanting, ‘We, the pioneers of the Ba’th, salute our leader Bashar al Assad’, followed by, ‘We are the voice of the proletariat’.   

“There was not much commentary in Amiralay’s film rather, he allowed the pictures to speak for themselves and to recount the story of the Syrian village of Al-Mashi that is governed by a clan leader and Member of Parliament, assisted by his nephew who is the head-teacher of a school and an official of the Ba’th party. The village represents a reduced example of the forty years of Ba’th rule and how this one party has maintained control and planted its ideology into the minds of Syrians from an early stage through instruction and repetition. One of the film’s ironies is a scene in which students are reading a text about freedom by Mostafa Lotfi El-Manfalouti.

“The documentary was filmed and produced in 2003 and was shown at numerous film festivals. There were many attempts to obstruct its viewing such as at the last Carthage Film Festival in Tunisia where the film was withdrawn. The production was awarded Best Short Film by the Arab World Institute in Paris, 2005. The Syrian authorities have always followed closely the film and the success of its director who is well-known for his opposition to the Syrian government. However, Syrian authorities only decided on 19 September 2006 to arrest Amiralay, prohibit him from leaving Syria and interrogate him for thirteen hours.

“This action came after Al Arabiya aired the documentary less than two weeks ago. Therefore, his arrest came only after the film was made available to Arab viewers in general and Syrians in particular. Disregarding the circumstances and factors associated to the film, its broadcast by Al Arabiya was the cause of Amiralay’s arrest and restriction on travel. According to Amiralay, the Syrian investigator asked about the content of the film in the same way that the film portrays. Amiralay said, ‘They wanted to know about the purpose and significance of the film’. As if this was not evident in the documentary itself!

“Amiralay loosened the reins on the film and the characters by interfering as little as possible and it is evident that this is what provoked the suspicion of Syrian censorship. Restriction is exactly what the production ‘A Flood in Ba’th Country’ looks at and accordingly the context of the film seemed normal and unlikely to be condemned by observers.

“What is left is that is that it is likely that the film will be shown on television as it is a form of public media and that political sensitivity will become more dominant than the questions that the director raised in his film, knowing that the Syrian investigator was aware that the documentary was produced before the crisis, which Syria is currently experiencing, began. Perhaps this ordeal that the Syrian director and producer is facing as well as Syrian literates and oppositionists is the natural ending that we should expect to see as we watch films like ‘Flood in Ba’th Country’.” – Asharq Al Awsat, United Kingdom

Protest in Syria Demanding Kurdish Citizenship    (taken from Mideastwire.com)

Elaph, an independent news website, reported in its September 27 issue about the latest developments in the issue of the Kurds in Syria. The website wrote: “The Kurdish political parties called for a protest in front of the building of the Syrian government headquarters on the morning of Thursday on the 5th of October to mark the ‘passage of more than four decades since the last census in 1962 in the Heske province’. The parties clarified that according to the census ‘hundreds of thousands of Kurds lost their Syrian nationalities and were deprived of all their rights’. A statement by the Yekiti and Azadi Kurdish political parties and the Kurdish Future movement in Syria pointed out that ‘despite all appeals to the government and its repeated pledges to solve the issue, most recently by the Syrian vice president Doctor Najah Al-Attar, none of the promises were ever implemented’.”  

The website continued: “The statement, of which Elaph received a copy, announced that ‘Our Kurdish people that constitute the second principal nationality and that live on its historic lands is suffering from racial policies and projects such as the Arab settlements and Arabization [transformation of area into Arab dominated region] plus the intentional marginalization and prohibiting us from reaching important jobs and the continuation of the regime to ignore the presence and rights of our people and its oppression of the democratic activists. Therefore we decided to field a public protest near the quarters of the government in Damascus starting at 11 p.m. on Thursday on the 5th of October and to raise slogans calling for the return of the Syrian nationality to those that have been deprived from it and to compensate them. We also will call for the cancellation of the policy of discrimination against us and to find a democratic solution for our cause within the unity of the country’.”The website added: “The statement called upon ‘our people and the Kurdish political forces and the national Syrian forces to congregate and protests against the continuation of the suppression of liberties, the oppression, and the discrimination and to call for finding solutions for all the issues through dialogue and common efforts for a democratic peaceful change in the country’.” – Elaph, United Kingdom

Pro-Democracy Students Held at Sidnaya Prison

This report was just sent to me by a young human rights activist in Syria. It speaks for itself. 

Trial of Eight Political Prisoners of the Syrian Youth Movement Postponed
They are Held Incommunicado and Face the Risk of Physical and Psychological Torture

Eight Syrian young men who were arrest between January and March 2006 for alleged pro-democracy activities in Damascus continue to held incommunicado and without legal counsel since their arrest. Most are students at the University of Damascus. Their names are: ‘Ali Nizar ‘Ali, Husam ‘Ali Mulhim, Tarek Ghorani, Maher Ibrahim, Ayham Saqr, Alam Fakhour, ‘Omar ‘Ali al-‘Abdullah and Diab Sirieyeh.

Originally detained at the Air Force Intelligence Branch in Harasta, near Damascus, they are believed to be held with other military and political prisoners in Sydnaya Prison. Their first trial was scheduled for 26 September 2006 at the Supreme State Security Court (SSSC) in Damascus.  Air Force Intelligence, suspected to be one of the most dangerous and brutal branches of the Syrian security apparatus, is known to use tactics of torture and cruel and unusual punishment, including physical and psychological abuse.  As they have had no contact with family, friends or human rights workers, many fear their lives are in grave danger.

The lack of visitation rights and legal counsel are particularly troubling to human rights activists in Syria.  Despite numerous requests, all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience held in the Sydnaya Prison are continually denied visitation rights and contact with family.  Those arrested since last year that have yet to be sentenced have remained incommunicado and in considerable danger.  Syrian officials have continually withheld information about the eight young men arrested and have yet to offer any news regarding their wellbeing or whereabouts.  This violation of human rights is particularly troubling and indicates that those held in Sydnaya may undergo various forms of torture and abuse. 

As family, friends, lawyers and human rights workers arrived for the trial, they were told to disperse immediately and informed that the trial had been postponed two months, to be held on 26 November 2006.  A police paddy wagon arrived carrying some three middle-aged prisoners with their hands bound and eyes blindfolded.  Armed guards escorted the men into the SSSC to await trial.  At this point Syrian police began shouting, “Go away! These are not the ones you’re here for!”

People awaiting the arrival of the eight young men were angry to see that none of the eight were not among those present.  Further upset by the dramatic arrival of the other prisoners, the psychological effect on the family and friends outside the courthouse was unbearable.  Full of emotion and tears, a mother of one detainee stood holding a tattered bag of food and personal belongings for her son that would never reach him.  The mother of Omar Al Abdullah, arrested 23 March 2006, awaited her son with a stoic sadness.  Her husband, journalist Ali Al Abdullah, and other son, Mohammad, are also in custody for another political matter and set to face trial on September 27th at the Military Court.  

The postponement of the trial is the most worrying aspect of recent events.  Human rights activists in Damascus have noted that it is extremely unusual in Syria to postpone a trial in this way.  This postponement, combined with a denial of visitation rights, has aggravated concerns that these men’s lives are in danger.

For background information on the eight Syrian youth, please visit the following sites: Amnesty International report, Syrian Human Rights Information Link (SHRIL), including background and photos of the eight youth, and a petition calling for the release of the eight youth.

Brammertz, Opposition Releases, and Israeli Talks

Three interesting bits of news today:

First, the Brammertz Report – news agencies that have perused the report are saying it is a bust, again. The same old reheated beans with a dash of salt and pepper. The operative line in the Reuters article was ” Brammertz’s latest report was mainly technical and did not offer conclusions on who ordered the killing.” There were plenty of lines, such as, The commission has identified a considerable number of new leads for investigation relating to the crime scene, its vicinity and the immediate perpetration of the crime, and has begun investigative and analytical work on each one them,” said the report given to Reuters by a Lebanese political source. Agence France Press, quotes a Middle Eastern diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, who said that the lack of new evidence “was due in part to the fact that the Brammertz-led enquiry panel had to leave Beirut for Nicosia in July when war broke out in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas, which hampered its work. The panel is now back in Beirut.” 

Before these early reviews of the report appeared, a number of analysts had emailed about the report by the Saudi paper Okaz on Monday, which claimed that the new Brammertz report would be sensational. It would name high-level Syrian officials, including intelligence chiefs Bahjat Sulaiman and Asef Shawkat, as suspects. The article insisted that Brammertz had cracked the case wide open by obtaining gobs of new information from a secret video tape made by Ghazi Kanaan shortly before he “committed suicide”. The sensational Kanaan tape story had been reported over a month ago by “unnamed Saudi diplomats”. Anyway, none of this turns out to be true.  

John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, has tried to spin the non-report as best he can by pointing to the fact that the UN is progressing in establishing guidelines for an international trial. Brammertz has also stressed that he is trying to bring evidence up to standard so it will hold up in a court. Bolton also pointed to the line in the report that suggests that later murders in Lebanon are now being linked to the Hariri assassination.

For Syria the anxiety will continue. Nevertheless, during the days preceding each new interim report, we get miles of spin, most of which turns out to be pure black propaganda. There is nothing new of real substance in this 4th interim UN report on the Hariri murder. Brammartz is supposed to finish his investigation by June of 2007, at which point all his evidence would be turned over to an international court of law. The Beirut government has yet to finalize its acceptance of the shape of the international court, how many Lebanese judges must be included on it, and how they would be selected. This means that Hizbullah and pro-Syrian Lebanese politicians retain some leverage over the court and its ultimate complexion. When Bolton threatens that the court is all set up and ready to go to work, he is not telling the whole truth. With the Lebanese government further weakened as a result of the Lebanon war, the entire court process is also weakened, because Lebanon has not abandoned all control over the process to the Security Council.

Second, opposition leaders in Syria were released from jail – Mahmoud Issa, Khalil Hussein and Suleiman al-Shammar were let go. Now eight of the original 10 arrested signers of the Damascus-Beirut Declaration are free. Michel Kilo and Anwar al-Bunni will be prosecuted, it seems, because they are by far the most prominent. Kilo has been at the forefront of all the recent Declarations and has spearheaded the attempts to unify the opposition within Syria with those in exile. He owns the present drive to turn the opposition into an effective force. If he is set free, he will go to work again. Some time ago, Kilo made the decision to take his efforts as far as he could, upping the pressure on the government little by little. I fear the Syrian government will not let him out of jail for some time.  On the whole, the opposition’s Lebanon gambit has failed miserably. The Lebanon War this summer turned Syrians against the pro-Hariri and anti-Hizbullah politicians. The secular opposition’s attempts to ally with pro-American Lebanese against their government can only turn back against them. It is the price of America ‘s being so unpopular. Here is what Reuters has to say: 

Syrian authorities released on Monday three signatories of a declaration that had criticized state policy toward Lebanon but left two leading dissidents behind the document in jail, human rights organizations said.  Communist politician Mahmoud Issa, Kurdish dissident Khalil Hussein and labor activist Suleiman al-Shammar were released on $20 bail, they said. “There is no intention of putting them on trial, unlike the last two signatories in prison,” Ammar al-Qurabi, president of the National Organization for Human Rights, told Reuters.  Ten dissidents were arrested in May after signing the Damascus-Beirut Declaration, which urged the government to mend ties with Lebanon that have been damaged since last year’s assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. 

Eight of the 10 have since been released while prominent lawyer Anwar al-Bunni and writer Michael Kilo remain in jail.  

Third, reports that Olmert’s people have been meeting with high level Saudis to talk about strategies for developing dialogue have been the subject of intense speculation. More importantly for Syria , the Israeli press has explained that Syrian and Israeli officials met at the beginning of the Lebanon war this summer to clarify war goals. Asad had been trying the renew negotiations with Israel . Here is the UPI story.  

Syria, Saudi, Israel meetings alleged   Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot broke the news Monday, quoting a Washington-based foreign political source who noted that “the aim of the meeting was to coordinate moves and exchange clarifications that neither side intended to re-ignite the dormant front between Israel and Syria .” The source said the meeting took place towards the end of July, a couple of weeks after Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers, sparking the 34-day long war which began July 12.  According to the newspaper, the two sides “also discussed ideas for resuming dialogue for achieving a political settlement.” 

It said a few months before the war on Lebanon , ” Syria approached Israel three times through mediators in order to renew political negotiations,” but the Jewish state rejected the Syrian request.  “In return, Israeli warplanes circled above Syrian President Bashar Assad’s palace in the coastal city of Latakia on the Mediterranean Sea ,” the paper said.  

Yossi Beilin said Israel’s refusal to explore Syria’s reported peace overture is a “diplomatic dereliction of duty.” A former Israeli foreign minister in the Israeli Labor Party, Beilin said Israel’s lack of response to Syria reflected a “blindness” on the part of conservative Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Israel’s Army Radio reported Sunday.  

“If Olmert continues to tread the path of blindness and arrogance, this will lead us into another armed confrontation,” Olmert was quoted as saying by the Ha’aretz news agency.  Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mualem last week said the war in Lebanon “created a genuine opportunity for peace and for solving the problems of the region.” Olmert did not immediately respond to Beilin’s comment. 

Amoz Oz and A.B. Yehoshua, Israel ‘s most famous writers, and Nobel Chemistry Prize laureate Aaron Ciechanover led a group of 68 well-known Israeli authors, academics and retired generals in called on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to open peace negotiations with the Palestinians’ Hamas rulers, Syria and Lebanon . The petition is the first sign of an organized effort to prod Olmert into negotiations since a month long war against the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon ended last month. “We strongly recommend that he make all efforts to reach an arrangement with Syria and Lebanon and the Palestinians,” another signatory, former Tel Aviv Mayor Shlomo Lahat, said Monday.  

Spiegel Interview with Assad: “America Must Listen” (Sept. 24, 06)

SPIEGEL ONLINE – September 24, 2006, 12:01 PM (Thanks to T_desco)
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,438804,00.html

SPIEGEL Interview with Syrian President Bashar Assad

“America Must Listen”

The Middle East, says Syrian President Bashar Assad, 40, seems to be teetering on the brink of chaos. He spoke with SPIEGEL about his country’s difficult relationship with the United States, the pressure to go to war, and the consequences of the wars in Lebanon and Iraq.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, the foiled attack on the US embassy in Damascus killed six people and has once again focused the world’s attention on Syria’s complicated relationship with the United States. What do you know about the background of the attack? 

Syrian President Bashar AssadAssad: It was a terrorist attack — which, on the face of it, says very little. Terrorism today is a state of mind that on the one hand has to do with ignorance and, on the other hand, can be attributed to a feeling of desperation over the political situation, which at some point takes the form of revenge. This appears to have been the background of this attack: a reaction to America’s policies in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan.

SPIEGEL: One of the attackers was still alive for a short time after the attack. Did your intelligence services manage to interrogate him?

Assad: No, he was in a coma before he died. Our conclusions are based on data that was in the attackers’ computers and on information from their private sphere. They were essentially from the same intellectual mould: men who call Osama bin Laden the “Lion of Islam.” Al-Qaida people — not in a hierarchical sense, but in terms of their worldview. Isolated young men from the Damascus suburbs — which is what makes the whole thing so dangerous. We can fight a terrorist group, but these isolated cells suggest that such ideas are widespread.

SPIEGEL: United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice thanked Syria for its role in preventing the attack. In return, however, you sharply criticized America’s Middle East policies. Why didn’t you take advantage of this rare gesture of goodwill?

Assad: Ms. Rice didn’t thank us for our policies, only for our response to the attack. But this attack happened precisely because of American policies in our region.

SPIEGEL: Why should the Americans be at fault?

Assad: Because they contribute to hopelessness in our country, and to silencing the dialogue between cultures. And then there is the condescending language — the expression “islamofascism,” which President Bush used, is a prime example. The pope’s recent comments are also part of it. Such statements complicate the situation and create this need for revenge.

SPIEGEL: A need for revenge could be understandable in Iraq or Palestine — but in Syria?

Assad: There are close ties among our peoples, whether in Iraq, Syria or Palestine. We have the same feelings, the same habits and the same pride. Look at Damascus. There are 500,000 refugees from the occupied Golan Heights, about 500,000 from Palestine and about 100,000 from Iraq living here. We tend to the needs of these people, but all we get from the West is rejection.

SPIEGEL: What has to happen for Syria and the United States to reconcile? 

Assad: America must listen. It must listen to the interests of others. But the US government has no interest in similarities, no matter how obvious. Think of the war against terrorism. In my view, Washington’s approach can be compared to a doctor constantly banging away at a tumor instead of removing it surgically. Terrorism is growing instead of declining. We both suffer from it, but the United States doesn’t want to cooperate with us.

SPIEGEL: The situation was different for a brief time after Sept. 11, 2001.

Assad: Yes, after the attacks I wrote a letter to President Bush and offered greater cooperation on security matters. It worked for quite a while and together, as the then CIA Director George Tenet confirmed to the US Congress, we saved many American lives. Then the Iraq war began to take shape and America started making many mistakes. And our cooperation ended.

SPIEGEL: After the most recent attack, too, there has been contact between US diplomats and Syrian officials.

Assad: Yes, but whether these meetings amount to anything will depend on the will of the Americans. What kinds of issues should we be discussing? Do we want to sit there drinking coffee and talk about the weather? Or do we want to achieve something in Iraq, in Lebanon and in the Middle East peace process? Those who ask this US government about its vision don’t receive answers anymore.

SPIEGEL: There was a vision: democracy in Iraq — a model for the region.

Assad: And where is this democracy today? Simply naming objectives isn’t sufficient for a vision. If I say that I’m going to build a large palace, but I don’t have any money to do so, then that is not a vision — it’s an illusion.

SPIEGEL: You are very pessimistic when it comes to Iraq. What can the countries of the Middle East do for Iraq?

Assad: I was already very pessimistic before the war. I told the Americans: There is no doubt that you will win this war, but then you will sink into a quagmire. What has now happened is worse than I expected. The two main problems are, first, the constitution and the issue of federalism, which is at the center of the great dispute between Sunnis and Shiites and, second, Kirkuk and the civil war that is developing between Kurds and Arabs. These problems must be addressed. It doesn’t help for the Americans to point to the elections they brought about or to the higher standard of living. Those are cosmetic issues.

SPIEGEL: What would be the consequences of partition into a Kurdish north, a Shiite south and a Sunni region in central Iraq? 

Assad: It would be harmful, not just for Iraq, but for the entire region, from Syria across the Gulf and into Central Asia. Imagine snapping a necklace and all the pearls fall to the ground. Almost all countries have natural dividing lines, and when ethnic and religious partition occurs in one country, it’ll soon happen elsewhere. It would be like the end of the Soviet Union — only far worse. Major wars, minor wars, no one will be capable of keeping the consequences under control.

SPIEGEL: So you would be in favor of a strong man who could hold Iraq together?

Assad: Not necessarily one man, but certainly a strong central authority. It has to be left to the Iraqis to determine exactly what this would look like. A secular authority is certainly best-equipped for maintaining stability in this ethnic and religious mosaic — but it should also be of a strong national character. Those who arrived on America’s tanks are not credible in Iraq.

SPIEGEL: After the cease-fire between Israel and the Hezbollah militia, you gave a much-noted speech on the situation in the Middle East. In your speech, you mentioned a “critical stage of the history of Syria and the region.” Wherein lies the opportunity?

Assad: First of all, it’s clear to everyone that the status quo of war and conflict and instability is no longer acceptable. Now America enters the picture, because only America, because of its weight, can be the main broker for peace in the Middle East. But the Bush administration is under pressure. It’s being accused of not having managed to bring about peace in six years. This pressure is good. Europe’s foreign policy role is also growing. We specifically do not want a special role for the Europeans. We expect them to work together with America to achieve peace, and to do so on the basis of a vision America must develop.

SPIEGEL: What is Syria’s role?

Assad: There can be no peace in the Middle East without Syria. The Lebanon and the Palestinian conflicts are inextricably linked with Syria. I have already mentioned the 500,000 Palestinian refugees. Were we to resolve our territorial dispute with Israel over the Golan Heights alone, we wouldn’t achieve stability. We would only be taking away the Palestinians’ hope and would be turning them from refugees into resistance fighters. This is why Syria is so determined to achieve a comprehensive peaceful solution.

SPIEGEL: What exactly will happen to the Palestinian refugees? To where should they return? 

Assad: They have the right of return, at least to Palestine…

SPIEGEL: … to Palestine or Israel?

Assad: You would have to talk to the Palestinians about that. …

SPIEGEL: In your speech, your tone was quite a bit different. In it, you called Israel an “enemy” and praised the “glorious battles” of Hezbollah. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier cancelled his trip to Damascus as a result.

Assad: Whenever you Germans come to Syria, you talk about freedom of opinion. Why don’t you allow me to have my opinion? But seriously: politicians should listen carefully. In my speech, I used the word “peace” 57 times. And if this speech was bellicose, how should one interpret the fact that Germany sends a submarine to the Israelis every other year?

SPIEGEL: Were you disappointed when Steinmeier cancelled his trip?

Assad: Of course, but the German foreign minister remains in contact with our foreign minister and has said that he wants to make up the trip. There’s another thing: The majority of my people think the way I spoke. We all have to have consideration for public opinion in our countries: the Europeans for theirs, and I for public opinion in Syria.

SPIEGEL: Public opinion in Germany would not have accepted it had the foreign minister not reacted to your having called Israel an enemy.

Assad: But Israel occupies a part of my country – of course Israel is an enemy. If you want to play a role in our region, then you have to be able to see things from our point of view. That’s also true for the classification of Hezbollah as a “terrorist organization.” That cannot remain so. In 2004, Germany played an important role during the prisoner exchange between Israel and Hezbollah. That’s exactly the point: to work within the realities that exist in this part of the world.

SPIEGEL: Germany’s history also plays a role. Do you accept that Germany has a special responsibility for Israel?

Assad: Do you mean that Israel is allowed to kill Palestinians and Arabs because Jews at that time were killed in Germany?

SPIEGEL: No, of course not. We’re talking about Israel’s right to exist.

Assad: But why don’t you also protect our right to exist? For us, the balance is important, and there, Europe is much closer to us than America. Europe knows our world.

SPIEGEL: Not long from now, German ships will begin patrolling off the Lebanese coast. What do you think of the German military mission in the Middle East?

Assad: That depends on the mission. Germany is supposed to prevent weapons from reaching Hezbollah. History teaches us that nobody can prevent a resistance group from arming when it has the support of the people. 

SPIEGEL: Mission Impossible for the German navy?

Assad: As long as the public support for Hezbollah remains as high as it is today, yes, it is a Mission Impossible. The majority here sees the resistance against Israel as legitimate. I would advise the Europeans: Don’t waste your time, address the roots of the problem…….(Continued)

Bayanouni Improves on Alawi Question

Ali Sadraddin Bayanouni, the leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, has been improving his answers to the Alawi Question. Does Bayanouni’s answer provide hope that Syria will find a way out of its sectarian dead end? Or that the Muslim Brotherhood is making citizenship and not religion the qualification for political equality?  Do such pronouncements promise a soft Syrian landing to democracy? Is this the influence of V.P. Khaddam?
 
My good friend Khudr, who has written several times about the Alawite predicament in Syria, has sent an interesting analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood’s changing language. He finds it promising.
 
Before reproducing his analysis, let me provide a baseline of one year ago.
 
When asked if Alawis are heretical sect by a Jamestown interviewer on (August 11, 2005): Bayanouni answered:

Ali Bayanouni: We do not discriminate against Alawis and as they say they are Muslims, we do not contest that. The problem of Syria remains political, a minority elite has seized a state and is oppressing the majority.

Bayanouni says that the Muslim Brothers will not contest the Islamic bonafides of the Alawis, if they want to call themselves Muslims. Nevertheless, he refuses to say that they are Muslims himself. His followers and most Shaykhs would eat him alive if he did. Of course, there is no reason why he need believe Alawis are Muslims, if the Muslim Brotherhood were willing to separate religion from politics, something the Brotherhood has been expressly against. What is more, Bayanouni calls the Asad regime a “minority elite.”
 
Let us compare this language of a year ago with today’s language. I now give you Khudr’s analysis as emailed me:

Khudr
Sept. 20, 2006
Syria Comment
 
1. Here is a Bayanouni interview with el-Mustaqbal TV on the 31st of August (2006). It has been published here by Akhbar el-Sharq, the Muslim Brotherhood publication and by el-Mustaqbal newspaper site here.

Bayanouni dismisses the notion that Syria could slip into civil war should the regime fall, arguing that Alawis have received their share of unfairness and torture. He claims that the Ikhwan, or Brothers, do not differentiate between the various sectarian groups of Syrian society. Rather, he insists, citizenship is the base to deal equally with everybody. He refuses to label the regime either as Baathist or Alawi, claiming it is a “family ruled regime.”

The paragraph concerned is:
??? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????????: “?? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ???????”? ? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??????. ? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ??????? “??? ??? ?????“.?

Syrian blood is sacred;
He also repeats the MB’s willingness to stand in court and take responsibility for any misdeeds of the past.
He said one thing that I personally really liked because I have been repeating that sentence for the longest time. “Dam el-Souri Haram” (Syrian blood is sacred).
 
?????? ?? ??? 2004 ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??????. ??? ??? ??????? ?? “?????” ????? ??????? ???????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? “???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??????”? ?”????? ??????? ????? ????”.?
 

Another indication of Baynouni’s softer approach is:
2. Bayanouni interview with El-Jazeera TV on the 17th of August (2006).
You can find it on MB website, here.
 
The paragraph concerned is:

 ???????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????, ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????, ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ???????.

3. Bayanouni interview with Al-Arabiya TV on the 29th of April (2006).
You can find it on the
MB website, here.

Here Bayanouni appreciates the diversity of Syrian society and says it should be preserved and is beneficial. The paragraph concerned is:

 ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ???????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? ??????????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??????.

I have the following to say about the above: 

1. Many people would say Bayanouni is just paying lip service to Syrian diversity and tolerance. They will insist that we not believe him. I think that what we should appreciate that he has started talking like a politician. This is a great step forward. It distances the MB from the ideological approach that it adopted in the past. In the 20th century, his words might have been dismissed as lies, but in the 21st century, given the power of the Internet and media, he cannot escape such formulations. He will be bound by what he has said. It would seem that the MB has overcome its urge to take revenge on the Alawis. Perhaps the anger and hatred remain, but its policy is no long one of revenge and death. One reason for their change in policy is because they want to capitalize on the chances of being the major political party and best organized entity that has the greatest chance of winning a good chunk of parliamentary seats in an open election.
 
I strongly believe this is the influence of Mr. Khaddam. The MB’s language has changed considerably since Khaddam allied with it. Mr. Khaddam is certainly a clever politician.
 
2. It is well known that Bayanouni represents the moderate faction in the MB. There are much more hardliner members of the Brotherhood in the back seats. However, re-electing Bayanouni as a head of the organization for a third term testifies to the willingness of the membership as a whole to side with the moderate faction. The MB of Syria is trying to take, as I mentioned above, a political position more suitable to Syria’s circumstances. Even if this puts the Syrian branch of the MB in disagreement with the MB of other countries. Bayanouni’s decision to ally with Khaddam not only produced considerable turmoil in his own party, but disturbed the other branches of the MB with which Syria maintains very close relations, such as the Jordanian MB. The Jordanian MB was completely against the alliance with Mr. Khaddam and establishment of the National Salvation Front.

The following article, by someone from within the MB talks about these disagreements.

Al-Qaida Plans for Syria

Here is a note I received from Massoud Derhally of Arabian Business about a documentary al-Jazeera is showing on al-Qa`ida in the Levant. It explains how al-Qa`ida leaders hope to open a new front in Syria and the states surrounding Palestine.

Al Jazeera ran on Sept 18 the second part of a documentary by Yusri Fouda on Al Qaeda in “Bilad al Sham”. The thesis is that inherently Al-Qaeda has a forward looking plan that was to attack the US, draw America to the Middle East and then fight it (i.e. in Iraq) and then exploit that conflict to get to the Palestinian front using Damascus and Lebanon.

The documentary interviews among others the son of Azzam who I am sure you know was instrumental in indoctrinating OBL in his early days before he jumped ship to Zawahri. It also interviews the founder of Junood Al Sham, and several Jihadi veterans from the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The seminal point the documentary makes is that “the youth are jaded with the corruption in the Arab world and an impotent leadership” so much so, that bright, educated people like Mohammad Atta (this is the documentary’s assessment not mine) turn to religion as a means to an end.

In fact the founder of Junood Al Sham is on record saying the only way to fight Israel is to turn to religion and that when you do so as a fighter, you are fearless.

This zealous fervor invariably is the panacea to the “Zionist-American-Western” axis, several of the interviewees hold.

An interesting and worrying dimension to all this was the existing and growing Salafist movement in Lebanon, namely in mountainous areas and even places like Baalbak where one of the 19 hijackers that carried out the Sept.. 11 attacks was from.

The documentary goes on to narrate how Al Qaeda’s man in Lebanon was arrested and then ‘died’ in detention. His supporters claim he was tortured and killed.

This all really is put in the context of a prophetic turn of events, where on the one hand there is a literal reading to Quranic texts to explain what is taking place on the ground in the ME region and on the other hand, a blue print of Al Qaeda’s greater plans, that in many ways is at the other end of say the Christian Right ideology, that is actively trying to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah.

The exception is that Al Qaeda and the Salafists don’t really see their struggle as part of preparing for such a showdown, but in essence more as confronting the infidel and crusaders.

There are some alarming clips in the documentary, where Azzam’s son says there will be something like 960,000 fighters in Damascus, specifically Halab, where there will be a battle against the invading forces.

Anyway the punch line which I think you will be interested in is that the documentary assesses Syria, Lebanon and other countries can turn to America, as they have, and point to this ominous and growing radicalization, and say we can help you in this war on terror, and that if you think for a moment that there is an alternative to the status quo it lies in the nexus of this fanaticism that spreads from Iraq, to Jordan, Egypt to Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

Best, Massoud

Lawrence Wright, who has recently published his block buster book on al-Qa`ida, The Looming Tower, which is the best al-Qa`ida book to date, has written about these plans in his latest New Yorker article: (I am copying less than half the original article. It is all worth reading.)

The Master Plan, by Lawrence Wright
For the new theorists of jihad, Al Qaeda is just the beginning.
From the Issue of 2006-09-11

Suri believed that the jihadi movement had nearly been extinguished by the drying up of financial resources, the killing or capture of many terrorist leaders, the loss of safe havens, and the increasing international coöperation among police agencies. (The British authorities were pursuing him as a suspect in the 1995 Paris Métro bombings.) Accordingly, he saw the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan, in 1996, as a “golden opportunity,” and he went there the following year. He set up a military camp in Afghanistan, and experimented with chemical weapons. He also arranged bin Laden’s first television interview with CNN. The journalist Peter Bergen, who spent several days in Suri’s company while producing the segment, and who recently published an oral history, “The Osama bin Laden I Know,” recalled, “He was tough and really smart. He seemed like a real intellectual, very conversant with history, and he had an intense seriousness of purpose. He certainly impressed me more than bin Laden.”

In 1999, Suri sent bin Laden an e-mail accusing him of endangering the Taliban regime with his highly theatrical attacks on American targets. And he mocked bin Laden’s love of publicity: “I think our brother has caught the disease of screens, flashes, fans, and applause.” In his writings, Suri rarely mentioned Al Qaeda and disavowed any direct connection to it, despite having served on its inner council. He preferred to speak more broadly of jihad, which he saw as a social movement, encompassing “all those who bear weapons—individuals, groups, and organizations—and wage jihad on the enemies of Islam.” By 2000, he had begun predicting the end of Al Qaeda, whose preëminence he portrayed as a stage in the development of the worldwide Islamist uprising. “Al Qaeda is not an organization, it is not a group, nor do we want it to be,” he writes. “It is a call, a reference, a methodology.” Eventually, its leadership would be eliminated, he said. (Suri himself was captured in Pakistan in November, 2005. American intelligence sources confirmed that Suri is in the custody of another country but refused to disclose his exact location.) In the time that remained to Al Qaeda, he argued, its main goal should be to stimulate other groups around the world to join the jihadi movement. His legacy, as he saw it, was to codify the doctrines that animated Islamist jihad, so that Muslim youths of the future could discover the cause and begin their own, spontaneous religious war.

In 2002, Suri, in his hideout in Iran, began writing his defining work, “Call for Worldwide Islamic Resistance,” which is sixteen hundred pages long and was published on the Internet in December, 2004. Didactic and repetitive, but also ruthlessly candid, the book dissects the faults of the jihadi movement and lays out a plan for the future of the struggle. The goal, he writes, is “to bring about the largest number of human and material casualties possible for America and its allies.” He specifically targets Jews, “Westerners in general,” the members of the NATO alliance, Russia, China, atheists, pagans, and hypocrites, as well as “any type of external enemy.” (The proliferation of adversaries mirrors Al Qaeda’s hatred of all other ideologies.)

And yet, at the same time, he bitterly blames Al Qaeda for dragging the entire jihadi movement into an unequal battle that it is likely to lose. Unlike most jihadi theorists, Suri acknowledges the setback caused by September 11th. He laments the demise of the Taliban, which he and other Salafi jihadis considered the modern world’s only true Islamic government. America’s “war on terror,” he complains, doesn’t discriminate between Al Qaeda adherents and Muslims in general. “Many loyal Muslims,” he writes, believe that the September 11th attacks “justified the American assault and have given it a legitimate rationale for reoccupying the Islamic world.” But Suri goes on to argue that America’s plans for international domination were already evident “in the likes of Nixon and Kissinger,” and that this agenda would have been pursued without the provocation of September 11th. Moreover, the American attack on Afghanistan was not really aimed at capturing or killing bin Laden; its true goal was to sweep away the Taliban and eliminate the rule of Islamic law.

In Suri’s view, the underground terrorist movement—that is, Al Qaeda and its sleeper cells—is defunct. This approach was “a failure on all fronts,” because of its inability to achieve military victory or to rally the Muslim people to its cause. He proposes that the next stage of jihad will be characterized by terrorism created by individuals or small autonomous groups (what he terms “leaderless resistance”), which will wear down the enemy and prepare the ground for the far more ambitious aim of waging war on “open fronts”—an outright struggle for territory. He explains, “Without confrontation in the field and seizing control of the land, we cannot establish a state, which is the strategic goal of the resistance.”

Suri acknowledges that the “Jewish enemy, led by America and its nonbelieving, apostate, hypocritical allies,” enjoys overwhelming military superiority, but he argues that the spiritual commitment of the jihadis is equally formidable. He questions Al Qaeda’s opposition to democracy, which offers radical Islamists an opportunity to “secretly use this comfortable and relaxed atmosphere to spread out, reorganize their ranks, and acquire broader public bases.” In many Arabic states, there is a predictable cycle of official tolerance and savage repression, which can work in favor of the Islamists. If the Islamists “open the way for political moderation,” Suri writes, they will “stretch out horizontally along the base and spread. So they once again exterminate and jihad grows yet again! So then they try to open things up once again, and Islam stretches out and expands again!”

The Bush Administration has declared a “war of ideas” against Islamism, Suri observes, and has had some success; he cites the modification of textbooks in many Muslim countries. This effort, he writes, must be countered by the propagation of the jihadi creed—and this is what his book attempts to do, offering a minutely detailed account of the tenets of Salafi jihadism. Suri urges his readers to reject their own repressive governments and to rise up against Western occupation and Zionism. Although the leaders of Al Qaeda have long excused the slaughter of innocents, and many of its attacks have been directed at other Muslims, Suri specifically cautions against harming other Muslims, women and children who may be nonbelievers, and other noncombatants.

Suri addresses the issue of Israel, writing that “the Zionist presence in Palestine” is an insult to Muslims; but he also excoriates the secular Palestinian National Authority that governs the country. “Armed jihad is the only solution,” he advises. “Every mujahid must wage jihad against all forms of normalization—its institutions, officials, and advocates . . . destroying them and assassinating those who rely on them . . . while paying attention not to harm Muslims by mistake.”

There are five regions, according to Suri, where jihadis should focus their energies: Afghanistan, Central Asia, Yemen, Morocco, and, especially, Iraq. The American occupation of Iraq, he declares, inaugurated a “historical new period” that almost single-handedly rescued the jihadi movement just when many of its critics thought it was finished.

The invasion of Iraq posed a dilemma for Al Qaeda. Iraq is a largely Shiite nation, and Al Qaeda is composed of Sunnis who believe that the Shia are heretics. Shortly before the invasion, in March, 2003, bin Laden issued his own list of targets, which included Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen—not Afghanistan or Iraq. Presumably, he regarded the chances of a Taliban resurgence as remote; moreover, he was aware that an Iraqi insurgency could ignite an Islamic civil war and lead to ethnic cleansing of the Sunni minority.

The American occupation posed a major opportunity, however, for a man named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi….

Zarqawi and his men were putting into action the vision that Abu Musab al-Suri had laid out for them: small, spontaneous groups carrying out individual acts of terror in Europe, and an open struggle for territory in Iraq.

Suicide bombings became a trademark of Zarqawi’s operation, despite Maqdisi’s condemnation of the practice….

Within radical Islamist circles, Zarqawi’s gory executions and attacks on Muslims at prayer became a source of controversy. From prison, Maqdisi chastised his former protégé. “The pure hands of jihad fighters must not be stained by shedding inviolable blood,” he wrote in an article that was posted on his Web site in July, 2004. “There is no point in vengeful acts that terrify people, provoke the entire world against mujahideen, and prompt the world to fight them.” Maqdisi also advised jihadis not to go to Iraq, “because it will be an inferno for them. This is, by God, the biggest catastrophe.”

Zarqawi angrily refuted Maqdisi’s remarks, saying that he took orders only from God; however, he was beginning to realize that his efforts in Iraq were another dead end for jihad. “The space of movement is starting to get smaller,” he had written to bin Laden in June. …

In July, 2005, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s chief ideologue and second-in-command, attempted to steer the nihilistic Zarqawi closer to the founders’ original course. In a letter, he outlined the next steps for the Iraqi jihad: “The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate. . . . The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before—the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.”

Zawahiri advised Zarqawi to moderate his attacks on Iraqi Shiites and to stop beheading hostages. “We are in a battle,” Zawahiri reminded him. “And more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.”

Zarqawi did not heed Al Qaeda’s requests. As the Iraqi jihad fell into barbarism, Al Qaeda’s leaders began advising their followers to go to Sudan or Kashmir, where the chances of victory seemed more promising. Al Qaeda, meanwhile, was confronting a new problem, which one of its prime thinkers, Abu Bakr Naji, had already anticipated, in an Internet document titled “The Management of Savagery.”

Naji’s identity is unknown. Other Islamist writers have said that he was Tunisian, but a Saudi newspaper identified him as Jordanian….

In 2005, Hussein produced what is perhaps the most definitive outline of Al Qaeda’s master plan: a book titled “Al-Zarqawi: The Second Generation of Al Qaeda.” Although it is largely a favorable biography of Zarqawi and his movement, Hussein incorporates the insights of other Al Qaeda members—notably, Saif al-Adl, the security chief.

It is chilling to read this work and realize how closely recent events seem to be hewing to Al Qaeda’s forecasts. Based on interviews with Zarqawi and Adl, Hussein claims that dragging Iran into conflict with the United States is key to Al Qaeda’s strategy. Expanding the area of conflict in the Middle East will cause the U.S. to overextend its forces. According to Hussein, Al Qaeda believes that Iran expects to be attacked by the U.S., because of its interest in building a nuclear weapon. “Accordingly, Iran is preparing to retaliate for or abort this strike by means of using powerful cards in its hand,” he writes. These tactics include targeting oil installations in the Persian Gulf, which could cut off sixty per cent of the world’s oil supplies, destabilizing Western economies.

In an ominous passage, Hussein notes that “for fifteen years—or since the end of the first Gulf War—Iran has been busy building a secret global army of highly trained personnel and the necessary financial and technological capabilities to carry out any kind of mission.” He is clearly referring to Hezbollah, which has so far focussed its attention on Israel. According to Hussein, “Iran has identified American and Jewish targets around the world. This secret army is led by two professional Lebanese men who have pledged full allegiance to Iran and who hold enough of a grudge against the Americans to qualify them to inflict damage on Jewish and American interests around the world.”

Iran, he continues, has been cultivating good relations with other Palestinian resistance groups, including Hamas. “Iran views these parties as its entrenched wings in occupied Palestine,” Hussein writes, asserting that the peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians at the Egyptian resort town of Sharm al-Sheikh in February, 2005, were secretly aimed at countering Iranian influence on the Palestinian resistance. “Al Qaeda interpreted this as the first step toward launching an attack on Iran,” Hussein claims. Both the U.S. and Israel view Hezbollah, the Islamist group in Lebanon, as a creature of the Iranian state, and are intent on eliminating it. “The military campaign against Iran will begin when the United States and Israel succeed in disarming Hezbollah,” Hussein predicts.

Hussein claims, without offering evidence, that Iran already has thirty thousand intelligence agents in Iraq. “Since the Americans have not succeeded in eliminating the Sunni resistance, how can they deal with the situation if the Shiites join the resistance? Iran plans to incite its proponents in Iraq to join the anti-U.S. resistance in the event that the United States or Israel launches an attack on Iran. Iran plans to open its border to the resistance and provide it with what it needs to achieve a swift and major victory against the Americans.” Al Qaeda, he writes, also expects the Americans to go after Iran’s principal ally in the region, Syria. The removal of the Assad regime—a longtime goal of jihadis—will allow the country to be infiltrated by Al Qaeda, putting the terrorists within reach, at last, of Israel….

Al Qaeda’s twenty-year plan began on September 11th, with a stage that Hussein calls “The Awakening.” The ideologues within Al Qaeda believed that “the Islamic nation was in a state of hibernation,” because of repeated catastrophes inflicted upon Muslims by the West. By striking America—“the head of the serpent”—Al Qaeda caused the United States to “lose consciousness and act chaotically against those who attacked it. This entitled the party that hit the serpent to lead the Islamic nation.” This first stage, says Hussein, ended in 2003, when American troops entered Baghdad.

The second, “Eye-Opening” stage will last until the end of 2006, Hussein writes. Iraq will become the recruiting ground for young men eager to attack America. In this phase, he argues, perhaps wishfully, Al Qaeda will move from being an organization to “a mushrooming invincible and popular trend.” The electronic jihad on the Internet will propagate Al Qaeda’s ideas, and Muslims will be pressed to donate funds to make up for the seizure of terrorist assets by the West. The third stage, “Arising and Standing Up,” will last from 2007 to 2010. Al Qaeda’s focus will be on Syria and Turkey, but it will also begin to directly confront Israel, in order to gain more credibility among the Muslim population.

In the fourth stage, lasting until 2013, Al Qaeda will bring about the demise of Arab governments. “The creeping loss of the regimes’ power will lead to a steady growth in strength within Al Qaeda,” Hussein predicts. Meanwhile, attacks against the Middle East petroleum industry will continue, and America’s power will deteriorate through the constant expansion of the circle of confrontation. “By then, Al Qaeda will have completed its electronic capabilities, and it will be time to use them to launch electronic attacks to undermine the U.S. economy.” Islamists will promote the idea of using gold as the international medium of exchange, leading to the collapse of the dollar.

Then an Islamic caliphate can be declared, inaugurating the fifth stage of Al Qaeda’s grand plan, which will last until 2016. “At this stage, the Western fist in the Arab region will loosen, and Israel will not be able to carry out preëmptive or precautionary strikes,” Hussein writes. “The international balance will change.” Al Qaeda and the Islamist movement will attract powerful new economic allies, such as China, and Europe will fall into disunity.

The sixth phase will be a period of “total confrontation.” The now established caliphate will form an Islamic Army and will instigate a worldwide fight between the “believers” and the “non-believers.” Hussein proclaims, “The world will realize the meaning of real terrorism.” By 2020, “definitive victory” will have been achieved. Victory, according to the Al Qaeda ideologues, means that “falsehood will come to an end. . . . The Islamic state will lead the human race once again to the shore of safety and the oasis of happiness.”

Al Qaeda’s version of utopia has drawn the allegiance of a new generation of Arabs, who have been tutored on the Internet by ideologues such as Suri and Naji. This “third generation of mujahideen,” as Suri calls them, have been radicalized by September 11th, the occupation of Iraq, and the Palestinian intifada. (Suri wrote this before the current struggle in Lebanon.) Those jihadis fighting in the conflict in Iraq have been trained in vicious urban warfare against the most formidable army in history. They will return to their home countries and add their expertise to the new cells springing up in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and many European nations….

Although American and European intelligence communities are aware of the jihadi texts, the work of these ideologues often reads like a playbook that U.S. policymakers have been slavishly, if inadvertently, following….

As the writings of Abu Musab al-Suri, Abu Bakr Naji, Fouad Hussein, and others make clear, the tradition of Salafi jihad existed before bin Laden and Al Qaeda and will likely survive them; yet, from the beginning of the war on terror, the strategy of the Administration has been to decapitate Al Qaeda’s leadership. Bruce Hoffman, who is the author of “Inside Terrorism” and a professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, told me, “One of the problems with the kill-or-capture metric is that it has often been to the exclusion of having a deeper, richer understanding of the movement, its origins, and our adversaries’ mindset. The nuances are absolutely critical. Our adversaries are wedded to the ideology that informs and fuels their struggle, and, by not paying attention, we risk not knowing our enemy.”

Apologies to David Schenker

My apologies to David Schenker. Several days ago I wrote: “David Schenker of WINEP and Tony Badran of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies are pushing [a] conspiracy theory.” The conspiracy theory I was referring to is the notion that the Syrian government was behind the terrorist attack on the American embassy.

In fact, Tony Badran argues that Syria was behind the attack, not David Schenker. I incorrectly lumped the two together because this is what Guy Darst of the Boston Herald did in his misleading article, cited as the source of my remarks.

I have since communicated with David Schenker. He sent me two articles about the embassy bombing, one of which Darst borrowed from. By taking Schenker’s remark out of its original context and plopping it in with Badran’s more serious accusations, Schenker was done an injustice and I compounded it.

The two articles that give a full account of David Schenker’s argument about the Damascus bombing make clear that he stops short of arguing that the government set up the bombers. Eli Lake of the New York Sun, quotes Schenker as follows:

“A couple of things like this have happened before,” Mr. Schenker said. “The embassy was stormed with the facilitation of the government, once in 1998 and once in 2000. The Syrians have been a welcoming environment for any number of terrorists for decades, so it should come as no surprise that unauthorized terrorists have taken up residence there and would be able to pull off this kind of attack.”

Schenker himself writes at counterterrorism.org :

In terms of context, though, the key point is that if this attack was indeed perpetrated by Islamists, it is the direct result of the double game being played by the Asad regime. The regime supports Sunni and Shiite Islamist militants in Lebanon, Palestinian Authority, and Iraq, and in the past has not acted against terrorists entering Jordan. Syria no longer cooperates with the US on Al Qaida, either. Given the regime’s friendly disposition toward terrorists, it would be no surprise if some unauthorized terrorist organizations were setting up shop in Damascus.

As these quotes make clear, Schenker did not suggest that Syrian authorities authorized the bombings. He argues that Syria was burnt by the fires it has started and keeps aflame. This is very different from Badran’s argument.

As for Badran and Vox’s claims that I contradict myself by not subscribing to the notion that the Syrian government was behind the bombing, this is specious. Tony quotes an article published by me on Syria Comment, but written by Abdulla Ta’i, which argued that Syrian authorities had set jihadists up to be arrested last year. In the incident that Abdullah was describing, the authorities apprehended the extremists before an attack was carried out. I cannot say whether Abdulla’s informant was correct, but the likelihood of it being correct seemed higher to me than much of the speculation done by people with no contact with Syria. Vox quotes a second article written by a friend, which explained how Syrian authorities allowed and managed the demonstration which ended with the burning of the Danish embassy.

The implications of both articles are provocative, but they don’t add up to Syria staging the embassy attack in which quite a few people were hurt, almost all Syrians. There is a big difference between staging the capture of jihadists or encouraging a crowd to attack the Danish embassy when no one is in it and trying to blow up the US embassy when it is full of people. In the same light, it is easy for Americans to understand why the US armed and funded jihadists in Afghanistan to fight Russia, but they don’t think America is behind jihadism when it doesn’t serve its interests or kills Americans. Syrians commonly use the Afghan connection to argue that the CIA was running Zarqawi as an agent in Iraq.

I gave four reasons why it doesn’t make sense for Syria to stage the jihadist bombing of the embassy. I think Syria genuinely wants to engage the West if the West is willing to compromise. I don’t believe Asad wants the American embassy in Damascus to be shuttered, halting the very limited means of communication that remain open between him and Washington.

One final remark about the articles written by other people that I publish. All I find interesting. Most I see the sense in. Some I don’t believe, for example, I don’t think it is likely that Hariri was killed by Islamic extremists. All the same, given the importance of the Hariri trial and the fact that most Syrians with whom I discussed it are not convinced that Syria did it, I publish alternative views, if they are backed up with an argument. The comment section is the best place to shoot down such speculation. Sometimes I make mistakes, as I did with David Schenker. I am happy to apologize when I know I am wrong.