Briefing paper on Syria
Wednesday, July 11, 2007, 23:34It's been quiet on this blog, and I should have known I'd be too busy to update in the last few weeks. Apologies for this.
In the meantime, one of the things that kept me busy is a briefing paper on Syria, published this morning by Chatham House, and which covers, according to the press office, "the reawakening of Syria." Do see for yourself and feel free to leave comments here. The paper, "Open for business: Syria's quest for a political deal" is available for download in PDF, on the Chatham House website (currently on the home page). The press release is here.
ADDENDUM: Today, I had a sudden nagging feeling that a vital piece of information got left out of my briefing paper, having been lost somewhere in the several drafts I went through while trying to keep it under 10,000 words. A quick check left me very upset, truly, because I only now realize that the following sentence is not in the published paper:
For merely meeting with American officials, Kamal Labwani was shockingly sentenced to life in prison, commuted to 12 years, a verdict that effectively dealt the coup de grâce to the current wave of civil society activism.
It's not only a matter of principle for me to mention our brave activists whenever I can, but it was also a most significant fact to add to this briefing paper in the section on domestic affairs, which I chose to cover. To whom does one apologize for such an important lapse?
[ 27 comments ]
Realizing Sharon's dream
Tuesday, June 19, 2007, 03:45I don't know if it's lack of time only, or extreme sadness as well, but I haven't been able to comment on the events of the past few days, especially as those in Palestine go from drastic to tragic to tragi-comic ... to tragic again. Every time we think things can't get worse, they get worse. Not that this wasn't expected this time, given the physical strangulation of Palestinians in Gaza.
Until I find the time myself, I leave you with Akiva Eldar's honest piece in Haaretz today, Sharon's dream. A partial explanation dedicated to those who still harbor illusions that the Israeli government is worried about events in Gaza, or that it didn't do everything in its power to lead Palestinians to this senseless, fanatical, self-destructive violence.
By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz
If Ariel Sharon were able to hear the news from the Gaza Strip and West Bank, he would call his loyal aide, Dov Weissglas, and say with a big laugh: "We did it, Dubi." Sharon is in a coma, but his plan is alive and kicking. Everyone is now talking about the state of Hamastan. In his house, they called it a bantustan, after the South African protectorates designed to perpetuate apartheid.
Just as in the Palestinian territories, blacks and colored people in South Africa were given limited autonomy in the country's least fertile areas. Those who remained outside these isolated enclaves, which were disconnected from each other, received the status of foreign workers, without civil rights. A few years ago, Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema told Israeli friends that shortly before he was elected prime minister, Sharon told him that the bantustan plan was the most suitable solution to our conflict.
The right and the settlers feared that the disengagement from the entire Gaza Strip was no more than a down payment on a withdrawal from most of the West Bank. The left and the international community similarly believed that if the evacuation of Israeli soldiers and civilians from Gaza went well, the way would be paved for a two-state solution; but there were also some who feared that Sharon did not intend merely to sever Gaza from Israel, thereby erasing 1.4 million Arabs from the demographic balance, but also to drive a wedge between Gaza and the West Bank.
Exactly two years ago, in June 2005, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit warned Shimon Peres during a visit to Israel that if the disengagement were not accompanied by progress toward a solution in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip "would explode," in his words. The then vice premier told his guest that he agreed with every word, but took care to point out that his statements did not necessarily reflect the views of prime minister Sharon.
Israel's violation of the Agreement on Movement and Access, which was signed by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, strengthened suspicions that Sharon was plotting to sever Gaza from the West Bank. The order that the dogs could bark, but the caravans would not move between the Palestinian Authority's two sections had already been quietly issued by the end of 2005. That was a few months before Hamas' victory in the PA parliamentary elections provided the winning excuse for sealing off Gaza. Following the political upset in the territories, the severance policy became official. Israel imposed a sweeping ban on Gaza residents entering the West Bank, which even applied to students with no record of security offenses. Even as it was protesting the Hamas government's refusal to commit itself to previous agreements, Israel was disavowing the interim agreement (Oslo II) that it signed in Washington in September 1995, under which the West Bank and Gaza constitute a "single territorial unit."
Alongside the severance of Gaza from the West Bank, a policy now called "isolation," the Sharon-Peres government and the Olmert-Peres government that succeeded it carried out the bantustan program in the West Bank. The Jordan Valley was separated from the rest of the West Bank; the south was severed from the north; and all three areas were severed from East Jerusalem. The "two states for two peoples" plan gave way to a "five states for two peoples" plan: one contiguous state, surrounded by settlement blocs, for Israel, and four isolated enclaves for the Palestinians. This plan was implemented on the ground via the intrusive route of the separation fence, a network of roadblocks deep inside the West Bank, settlement expansion and arbitrary orders by military commanders. The cantonized map that these dictated left no chance for the road map or the "gestures" that Israel promised to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and the Americans.
But the hope that Hamas' thugs and Fatah's good-for-nothings will finish the work of that well-known righteous man, Sharon, and his flunkies in the government and army is no more than a warped delusion. Eight years of rioting and terror ended in the liquidation of South Africa's bantustans and their inclusion in a unified state governed by the black majority. This dream of Palestinian protectorates - Hamastan in Gaza and the Fatahland enclaves in the West Bank - is similarly the end of any solution based on dividing the land: Israel in agreed-upon borders based on the Green Line and Palestine on the other side. If we do not quickly wake up from this dream and rescue what remains of the two-state vision, we will truly be left with a choice between the plague - an apartheid regime - and the cholera: the Jewish state's replacement with a binational state between the Jordan River and the sea. Including the Gaza Strip.
[ 7 comments ]
Is London's future Islamic?
Wednesday, June 13, 2007, 00:45Not that British media is trying to spread panic or anything ...
Cover of Time Out's current edition.
[ 42 comments ]
1967, 40 years later
Friday, June 8, 2007, 23:59A few posts ago, in the comments section of this blog, the idea of a forum for Syrian bloggers to debate the 40th anniversary of 1967 war (and hopefully other things) was born. It is because of the incredible work done by the incomparable Camille-Alexandre (our own Alex) that we have a wonderful site, part of the bigger, superb Creative Syria and sister subsite of Creative Syria Think Tank where I’ve written before.
The current edition is about the sad 40th anniversary of the 1967 war. The main Syrian Bloggers Forum page lists all the writers, in the order in which they wrote. I am not copying my entire entry here, just the first two paragraphs. Please read my article on the original site so that any comments you may wish to make (always welcome, whatever your opinion) can be added to the overall debate. You can also give a rating to each article you read, should you wish to do so. Here’s a taste of my take:
“The time has come to rain on the love parade. Observing a 40th anniversary not of peace, but of war, reminds us that there is clearly one party which is a big winner and another a big loser, a victor and a victim, an aggressor and an aggressed. A wrong, and a right. A strong warmonger, and a weak prey. Israel, and Arabs.
But judging from the commemorations, it would be easy for a newly landed Martian to think it was actually the other way around, given the unbelievable propensity, spreading like a virus, to convince, reassure, persuade, sweet-talk and beseech Israel to give back some land so that we could please have some peace. In fact, with every so-called peace initiative, Israel’s victims are left asking for less and less.”
Continue reading about the Golan Heights ...
What I will post here, in a different take, is what Bitter Lemons International published yesterday.
The new Syrian syndrome
Syrian-Israeli negotiations once enjoyed high visibility, spreading over a decade and passing through several Israeli governments, from the toughest Likudnik to the supposedly softest leftist dove. Thus, judging from the continuing state of belligerence between the two countries, one might assume the difficulties in reaching a peace agreement were insurmountable.
It is true that relations between Syrians and Israelis have been at their most hostile in recent years. Having developed a "Syria syndrome", Israel pretends to believe its own fabrications and ironically turns all things Syrian into obstacles to conviviality and dangers to the stability of the region, ignoring its own history of aggression. Syrian propaganda, meanwhile, has been only too happy to play along, inflating Syrian capacity to defend itself and the Palestinian cause, if not to attack.
The war of 1973 played a big role in these mind games. For the first time, Israel's neighbors neither felt afraid to fight nor necessarily victims at the end. The contrast with the catastrophic black days of June 1967 couldn't have been greater: in October 1973, Syria felt capable of leading the region and of standing up to Israel. Had Anwar Sadat not stopped so abruptly in mid-fight, or had Gamal Abdul Nasser still been in charge, things would probably have been different.
But the limited victory in 1973 could not erase the defeat of 1967 and the loss of the Golan Heights, especially after Sadat went his separate way. Often accused of not caring about the Golan and paying it only lip service, the Syrian regime has nevertheless been keen, at least officially, to argue that peace was its foremost goal and that the return of the entire Golan Heights was the only option.
In fact, if the situation were to be "analyzed" and the return of the Golan "rationalized" (a redundant exercise since Israel should not have to be proffered reasons to return stolen land but should rather be forced to do so), of all the problems in the region the Syrian-Israeli track is certainly the easiest to solve. This is true even 40 years after the occupation of the Golan and 26 years after its illegal annexation by the Israeli Knesset was rejected by UN Security Council Resolution 497.
Even if seen from a purely Israeli perspective--assuming that such factors really matter when international legality is to be enforced--there are no settlers of the religious kind (as in Hebron) to evacuate from the Golan, and it is not land the Jewish people claim as part of their history (unlike, say, most of Palestine). Peace with Syria would probably solve a number of other problems for Israel, including curbing current support for militant Palestinian groups and the Lebanon file and the thorny issue of Hizballah.
From a legal and political perspective--apart from UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 on which the peace process launched in Madrid in 1991 was based and the principle of the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"--reassurances to Israel even came with the Arab peace initiative of 2002, re-launched this year as if it were a regular marketing campaign waiting for the customer to bite.
The current Syrian regime has made repeated overtures about resuming peace talks, not where they last left off but from scratch. With recurring media statements, handshakes initiated in the most unlikely of settings, dubious non-papers offering unprecedented concessions and frequent messages sent via third parties, the Syrian regime has left no doubt as to its aspirations. If there ever was a Syrian syndrome, this is it.
And yet, Israel still refuses to return to negotiations, blowing hot and cold about peace prospects, claiming doubts about Syria's real intentions (e.g., that Damascus is supposedly attempting to escape an isolation that exists only in the fantasy of its opponents) and refusing to give it the "benefit" of engagement while the US is isolating it. What a strange turn of affairs and questionable attitude for a country pretending to be desperate for peace. And how astonishing that it has somehow become acceptable for Israel to publicly discuss the ifs, the hows and the whens of a return of the Golan Heights. In full defiance of the so-called will of the international community--which is deemed sacrosanct only when it suits pro-American agendas--Israel is not only allowed but actively encouraged to flout dozens of resolutions, a behavior that would have been costly for other countries. After 40 years of occupation, absurdly, the onus is on the victim to reassure its aggressor about its peaceful intentions.
This current political seesaw is quite symbolic of the Israeli-American attachment to the glorification of 1967, as they continue to romanticize the fabulous David and Goliath tale they have woven, alleging Israel was the aggressed party fighting for its survival, even concocting an excuse for Israel's violent attack on USS Liberty, and continuously justifying Israel's violent greed for its neighbors' lands. But Israel and America are acting as if 40 years of occupation and confrontation, after 20 years of dispossession since 1948, had not been catastrophic for the Palestinian people and had not triggered a wave of dire consequences that have affected much more than the Middle East. As long as they maintain this unilateralist, victorious and remorseless attitude, 1967 cannot be forgotten, let alone forgiven.- Published 7/6/2007 © bitterlemons-international.org
Rime Allaf is associate fellow at London's Chatham House.
[ 13 comments ]
Cui bono? And is that relevant now?
Wednesday, May 23, 2007, 14:09I have just heard the correspondent of Al Jazeera International again refer to the “violence” in Tripoli as the worst seen in Lebanon since the end of the civil war. You could have fooled me. Not to take away from the brutality of the past couple of days, but I seem to recall a certain Israeli aggression of particular savagery last July which killed over a thousand civilians, injured many more and destroyed a great deal of Lebanon's infrastructure, during which the Lebanese army (serving tea to the enemy notwithstanding) did very little to defend its compatriots. Perhaps it had reserved the right to retaliate, like the Syrian army does whenever attacked by Israel? In any case, like the Syrian army since 1973 (apart from a brief brutal battle with Israel in 1982), it only seems to hit on weaker people, especially innocent civilians caught in the trap. The Lebanese army now has the honor of “fighting the war on terror” and receiving the admiration of the Bush administration.
As usual, while Gaza continues to burn under Israeli fire, something comes to draw the world’s already limited attention to another, bigger story. Palestinians starved, strangled, infiltrated by extremists and left to struggle amongst themselves in Gaza (with a little help from certain friends arming them) while the civilized world professes horror, that’s already old news. Palestinians, starved, strangled, infiltrated by extremists and left to struggle amongst themselves in a Lebanese camp, now that we haven’t seen for a long time. Add shelling from outside the camp and it’s déjà vu, all over again, and again – but it’s big news. And now it’s under siege with no water, electricity, and the resulting problems (notice, by the way, how The Guardian filed the story: look at the country indicated in the link).
For the Palestinians, it doesn’t really matter anymore whether the attack comes from Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian or Israeli shells and bombs. Nor does it matter anymore where it happens. Once more, those wretched Palestinians are under attack, 40 years after the catastrophic Israeli attack and invasion of June 1967, and six decades after the initial dispossession which the world continues to allow and even encourage. With its treatment of Palestinians, the so-called free world has lost all pretense of moral high ground and is no better than the so-called sponsors of terrorism in the world.
Tal El Zatar? Hama? Sabra and Chatila? Fallujah? No, it’s Nahr Al Bared.
But is anyone really interested in the fate of the desperate Palestinians? I am outraged by the hardships imposed on the Palestinian people, refugees in the most miserable conditions one could imagine, held hostage in camps not fit for animals for decades, and now casually considered as understandable collateral damage. Local residents, the “I love life crowd” and the “civilized cedar revolutionaries” who could do no wrong, have apparently been cheering the army as it shelled the camp. Unlike the life-worthy Westerners (or Lebanese with dual citizenship) who were evacuated to escape Israel’s savagery last summer, these Palestinians will not be helped by anyone.
How many more times will Palestinians be terrorized into escape?
Ban Ki-moon has stated he was “deeply saddened by the civilian casualties” but, even more importantly and higher up in the statement, “deplores the criminal attacks carried out over the past several days against the Lebanese army and security forces.”
If that’s the concern of the Secretary General of the UN, what do you expect from the rest? They’re all busy blaming the culprit for this chaos (Syria) and reiterating (or underlining, as the Syrians would say) the inevitability of the international tribunal. Because that’s what matters now: not stopping the bloodshed and saving poor innocent destitute Palestinians, no no, it's punishing whoever killed Hariri.
In fact, the whole story has been enveloped in the usual expert analysis (Syria dun it) revolving around who supposedly benefits from this chaos (Syria dun it) and who is afraid of the coming tribunal (Syria dun it) and who wants to destroy Lebanon (Syria dun it) and who created Fateh al Islam (Syria dun it). How very deep and proven.
It’s amazing how regime critics like myself are expected to jump at the opportunity to attack the regime and forget about the other ruthless players. However, there is more to solving a question than deciding who benefits. In fact, had cui bono been the only acceptable factor of analysis, then one could conclude that Iran must have been behind the invasion of Iraq. That's the problem with cui bono analysis: the intended outcome of an act can backfire and starts benefitting others who weren't necessarily involved (does that mean they did it?), and the culprit can miscalculate and get the opposite reaction.
Three men robbed a bank. They were pursued by the Lebanese army. They started fighting. After heavy losses, the Lebanese army decides to start shelling the refugee camp where the men’s group, Fateh al Islam, holds court.
So if Syria dun it (which I am not saying it didn’t), did it ask the men to rob the bank, and to lead the army to them, and to make sure it would cause so many casualties in the army, and to then get shelled by the army, and for general chaos to ensue, so that the tribunal wouldn’t come? The analysis goes like this: the Syrian regime is trying to make sure that the tribunal does not happen, so it pushes some buttons and sets the area on fire. Not an unreasonable analysis. It’s also a logic that has the culprit assuming that the Lebanese would go running to the UN to retract the demand for an international tribunal under Chapter VII. Well, that’s what Murdoch’s increasingly trashy publication, The Times, says in yesterday’s editorial: it’s simply Syrian blackmail.
If this indeed is the story so far, the Syrians should really rethink their relationship with their Lebanese allies, given that Emile Lahoud and Hezbollah have taken side with the army.
Now here’s an equally unreasonable possibility, marketed by the Syrians themselves: opponents of the Syrian regime are trying to make sure that the tribunal does come, and thus are setting the area on fire to show that the Syrians are spreading violence in order to avoid the tribunal. Are you with me so far? As conspiracy analysis goes, it’s as good a guess as the first one.
Here’s yet another possibility, which is even more likely but which Hariri-martyr-tribunal centric ideology cannot begin to comprehend: Fateh Al Islam is in fact a little splinter group that emerged out of nowhere rather recently, grouping militants from a variety of Arab nations, hell bent on joining the global war on terror (with different targets of course) and spreading a very unique and rigid version of Islam.
Except that it didn’t emerge out of nowhere, and it seems to have surprisingly effective and modern weapons at its disposal. And it seems to fit in the "us versus them" fad, the "organizing of a counterbalance to the Shia crescent which nobody seems to be able to control" obsession. So who could be arming them? Surely there must be more interested parties than just the Syrians.
In a frenzy to blame the Syrian regime for every mishap in the region, most people are forgetting that the other actors aren’t as angelic as they seem, and that the US and Saudi Arabia (to mention just two) have as much, if not more influence in Lebanon, and that they have been known to conduct the most ridiculous and counter effective policies to counter this Shia crescent of mythological proportions after having more or less delivered Iraq on a silver platter to Iran. It is simply stupid to ignore declared neocon agendas (just because it hasn't been a "clean break" doesn't mean the breaking isn't still the plan), and to ridicule respected investigative journalists like Seymour Hersh because they don’t automatically repeat the slogan that Syria did it.
People are so busy trying to rationalize the “fact” that this group, which even extreme militants like Hamas have disowned, is a tool of the Syrian regime that they can’t see the forest for the trees. It very well could be a tool of the regime, but nobody really knows that, and it very well could be a tool of the Saudis gone wrong, but nobody really knows that.
What I strongly object to is the oversimplification that has taken over discussion of Middle East affairs, and the parroting of the fanatic George Bush and the despicable Tony Blair in their "good versus evil" self-righteousness. I am simply tired of superficial analysis that makes assertions without a shred of evidence, and, even worse, without a shred of logic as it ignores the regional dimensions.
There are no good people amongst the involved regimes here: they have all contributed to making the region chaotic and violent, and to making its people increasingly desperate, just so that they could pursue fanatical and greedy agendas as they fight for power over the misery of people struggling to live, and over the corpses of innocent victims.
As for the bombs in Ashrafieh and Verdun, I think they are unrelated and much more likely to be good old fashioned intimidation. But my guess is as good as yours.
Newsflash, breaking news, exclusive ... Walid Jumblatt, speaking on Al Jazeera tonight (just before 10 PM London time), has just accused the television channel and its owner, the government of Qatar (he wasn't sure which Emir it was), of complicity in the bombings in Ashrafieh, Verdun and Aley. Syria and Qatar. Someone call the UN.
Much more interesting than Jumblatt's idiocies (which Al Arabiya was happy to mention in subsequent bulletins as big news) is the following article by Charles Harb in today's Guardian, which gives a good summary of how the region is being played, and how some groups are nurturing various militants in order to counter the so-called Shia crescent, which I mentioned above in my entry. In short, he says: "The Islamists at the centre of the fighting were built up by pro-government forces for sectarian reasons."
Blowback in Lebanon, by Charles Harb, The Guardian
Meet The Welch Club in an interesting account of the situation in Palestinian camps, and of who's behind the fighting in North Lebanon, as described by Franklin Lamb in "Inside Narh al-Bared and Bedawi Refugee Camps."
[ 25 comments ]
Seale on our prisoners of conscience
Friday, May 18, 2007, 10:50There is a reason I haven't yet written on the latest open abuses of human rights in Syria, but I hope to be able to publish it next week. Actually there are several reasons, including not wanting to repeat the obvious while extremely angry, and waiting to read other responses for a change (mostly in vain, as usual).
In the meantime, Patrick Seale has published an open letter to Bashar Assad, writing under the assumption (I suppose) that he is not really aware about our prisoners of conscience and their jail conditions, and calling for an "early amnesty." I would have written "immediate release" of course. Still, he asks: "Is this not the moment, Mr. President, to show the world a humane and generous face, and win international support, by turning your attention to the plight of prisoners of conscience, unfairly and cruelly punished by your courts?"
Most of those who have followed the cases are familiar with the succession of events, but I will quote the most relevant parts from the article for those who don't. (Unfortunately, he does not mention previously jailed prisoners or conscience, whereas my article actually begins with Dr. Aref Dalila, but more next week.)
From Patrick Seale's article in Al Hayat:
Anwar al-Bunni is Syria’s leading defender of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. In March 2006, with funding and encouragement from the European Union, he created a Syrian human rights centre. Your security services closed it down almost immediately.
On 17 May 2006, Bunni was arrested and detained with common criminals at ‘Adra prison near Damascus where, according to Amnesty International, he suffered beatings and degrading treatment. He was not allowed to meet privately with his lawyers. I understand that he has written to you drawing your attention to the fact that some six thousand prisoners in ‘Adra are routinely subjected to beatings, insults and terror, and prevented from leaving their cells, watching TV, or listening to the radio. He has asked you to investigate prison conditions. I very much hope you will respond positively to this request.
On 31 December, Bunni was assaulted by a criminal detainee who pushed him down some stairs and then beat him on the head in the presence of prison guards, who failed to intervene. On 25 January 2007, he was severely beaten by prison guards who made him crawl on all fours and forcibly shaved his head. I feel sure that you are aware that he is a prisoner of conscience detained solely for the expression of non-violent ideas.
On 24 April, he was sentenced by the Damascus Criminal Court to five years’ imprisonment on the charge of "spreading false information harmful to the state" (Article 286 of the Penal Code). Foreign diplomats present in court were disturbed by this harsh sentence and considered the trial unfair. Such political trials before Syria’s Criminal, Military and State Security Courts have come under severe international criticism for the blatant influence of the security services on the proceedings.
I would suggest that prisoners like Anwar al-Bunni, a respected lawyer, are more damaging to you inside prison than at liberty.
According to Amnesty International, his ‘crime’ was to have raised the case of the death in custody of 26-year-old Muhammad Shaher Haysa, as a result of inhumane treatment, possibly amounting to torture. When Haysa’s body was returned to his family, it was said to have shown signs of torture. Amnesty says that torture and ill treatment are still widespread in Syrian prisons and that there has been no independent investigation into any of the cases of torture and suspicious deaths reported over the years.
I feel sure you will agree that it is of the utmost importance that Syrian prison guards comply strictly with the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment -- to which Syria is a party.
Other recent cases are those of the prominent writer and journalist Michel Kilo and the English language teacher Mahmoud ‘Issa who, after long months of detention at ‘Adra, were each given three-year prison sentences on 4 May by the Damascus Criminal Court.
They were charged with "weakening nationalist sentiments" (Article 285 of the Penal Code), with "inciting sectarian strife" (Article 307), and with "publishing a political article or giving a political speech with the aim of making propaganda for a political party, society or a banned political association" (Article 150 of the Code of Military Procedures.). ‘Issa was also charged with "exposing Syria to hostile acts" (Article 278 of the Penal Code).
Their ‘crime’ was involvement in the so-called Beirut-Damascus Declaration, a petition, signed by some 300 Syrians and Lebanese and released on 12 May 2006, which called for the normalization of relations between Syria and Lebanon by exchanging ambassadors and defining their common border.
Another opposition figure, Kamal Labwani, founder of the Democratic Liberal Gathering, has suffered an even worse fate. He was arrested at Damascus airport in 2005 on his return from the United States, where he had attended a conference and met White House officials. This month he was given a shocking sentence of 12 years in jail on a charge of contacting a foreign country and "encouraging attack against Syria."
[ 38 comments ]
Judging Blair on Iraq and more
Tuesday, May 15, 2007, 01:46Commentary on Syrian affairs has been predominant on this blog for some time, in spite of the tragic incidents taking place in my other areas of interest. While Iraq continues to grab the media’s attention (although not enough, and not for the right reasons), Palestine’s descent into even greater misery is mostly unnoticed. A few days ago, the Israeli army killed an unborn baby in his mother's womb, shooting him in the head. Where's the international shock, the sympathy, or am I one in a minority who have been shaken by this tragedy? Reports about ever greater poverty in Gaza forcing children to work, beg or worse continue to pile up. Where’s the outrage, where are the pledges of support from humanitarians worldwide?
Meanwhile, the mediocre Tony Blair has finally announced his “resignation” and we can at least rejoice in the expectation that we won’t be seeing this war criminal’s face every day any longer. I feel particular disdain for Blair, and have done since practically the beginning of his term in office, because I believe he has carried out most of his God-forsaken actions in the world not out of conviction or for his country's interests, but because of egotistical concerns and a delusional self-perception as an international leader.
I haven’t had the time to cover Blair’s long awaited departure and can only say good riddance, but I am happy to see that the excellent Avi Shlaim has written a strong op-ed in The Guardian, titled "It is not only God that will be Blair’s judge over Iraq". It's a great read and I agree with most of Shlaim’s positions, especially when he writes that “Blair’s entire record in the Middle East is one of catastrophic failure.” I would add that there are many more reasons why Blair deserves nothing but contempt, and wish that Shlaim had been even tougher on him. With Blair gone, it's one down ...
[ 23 comments ]
Peace talks: means to an end or end in itself?
Friday, May 4, 2007, 13:00What a difference a few days can make! I was asked ages ago to write a piece on Syria for the leading Swiss newspaper (German speaking part, based in Zürich), Tages Anzeiger; I finally sent it last week, and it was published this morning.
Of course, as luck would have it, the American Secretary of State and the Syrian Foreign Minister couldn’t wait a few days more to meet, they simply had to do it yesterday. (More on that soon, of course.) Nevertheless, the meeting will not change much, and my essential argument is about whether the regime wants just to talk, or wants a peace treaty. I think it can live with both, but would actually gain a lot with the latter.
In any case, here is the English version; anyone interested in the German version should request it and I’ll gladly sent it (no lin as it’s on a subscriber-only part online).
Basking in the limelight
Syrians are accustomed to seeing negative portrayals of their country in Western media, but the unprecedented levels of criticism following the invasion of Iraq and the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime managed to worry even the regime for some time. Would Syria’s strong denouncement of the Iraq fiasco encourage the Bush administration to seek a new confrontation and change two regimes for the price of one?
No sooner had the ensuing quagmire in Iraq begun to reassure the Syrians of their relative safety than a new, even harder situation arose with the spectacular assassination of Rafik Hariri in Beirut, at a time when some 14,000 Syrian troops and unknown numbers of Syrian intelligence officers still controlled Lebanon. Anti-Syrian sentiment was so high amongst Western leaders that it even reunited the US and France (which had been at drastically opposing poles on Iraq) into a joint foreign Levant policy, beginning with UN Security Council Resolution 1559 when Syria enforced an unconstitutional extension to its Lebanese ally’s presidential term.
Thus, when Syrian troops withdrew humiliatingly from Lebanon in April 2005, caving under the force of international condemnation and Lebanese demonstrations, many analysts once more imagined the impending demise of the Syrian regime, which was assumed by most to be at least implicated in the murder of Hariri, and which was expected to be fingered in the UN inquiry set up to investigate it.
Yet, two years later, and after numerous statements of disapproval from practically every European government, in addition to suddenly frosty relations with influential Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the Syrian regime finds itself, once more, being courted by most of its critics. While the Bush administration stubbornly remains entrenched in its attempts to isolate Syria, immaturely refusing to even conduct a dialogue, other countries have recognized that it is impossible to deal with the region’s three foremost problems without Syria’s cooperation. Indeed, in each of Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq, Syria has history, influence and long-term interests, and any development in these three countries will involve Syria, one way or another, especially while the Syrian Golan Heights remain occupied by Israel.
Ironically, the US and Israel, Syria’s staunchest opponents, can take the credit for giving back to the Syrian regime the self-confidence it had nearly lost, and the rapprochement with the EU. The Israeli assault on Lebanon in July 2006, which Hezbollah surprisingly managed to counter in what many considered a true victory of Arab resistance against Western aggression and occupation, reaped many benefits for Syria; the regime’s support of Hezbollah (and groups like Hamas) simultaneously vindicated it in the eyes of an Arab street frustrated with Arab and foreign leaders alike, and proved to foreign governments that Syria was an indispensable partner. For the Syrian regime, which had argued this all along, the time had come to settle accounts and demand the leading role it warranted, if only because of geography.
This is why the recent conference on Iraq included Syria, why the upcoming Arab summit will be held in Damascus, why the EU has restarted progress on the Association Agreement, and why Syrian officials are welcoming droves of foreign dignitaries again. This is also why Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi led a delegation of members of Congress to Damascus, in a public rejection of official government policy, to the delight of the Syrians. The only ones still balking are the American and Israeli governments, and Syria’s messages of engagement are falling on deaf ears.
Some analysts have since argued that the Syrian regime is only interested in its own survival (a point which certainly holds merit) and that it would use negotiations with Israel and engagement with others merely as a means to an end – the end being its longevity and security. As long as the Syrian regime is engaged and negotiating, goes the logic, it escapes the pressure of the Hariri investigation and tribunal, amongst others.
There are some flaws in these arguments. For one, it is simplistic to imagine that the Syrian regime would only prefer the status quo to peace with Israel; on the contrary, there is merit to the case that the retrieval of the Golan Heights would give the regime renewed legitimacy, and a popularity which would allow it to ride a wave of acceptance for many years. In fact, this seems to be validated by the very generous concessions the regime seems willing to give just to rekindle the peace process. While this could be purely tactical, given Israel’s public refusal to give back the land it occupied in 1967, the regime is clearly prepared for a scenario of peaceful relations.
It is also simplistic to imagine that the regime is after close ties with the US, when its saving grace, and the source of its credibility in some areas, has actually been its opposition to American designs on the region and its support of Arab causes and resistance movements. Given that Arab populations have mostly been cured of the desire for regime change, thanks to the catastrophic consequences of the Bush administration’s actions in Iraq, the Syrian regime is in no doubt that its forceful removal (by foreign troops or by popular uprising) is not an option - if it ever was.
As for the Hariri investigation and the issue of the tribunal, following an initial period of self-defense, the regime has managed to show it was a victim of unreasonable political persecution after the main witnesses in Detlev Mehlis’s first report were discredited. With subsequent reports being mostly technical and lacking the necessary “smoking gun” to indict Syria, the Syrian regime currently seems out of the fire and in no fear of the investigation anymore.
It is therefore important to make a distinction between the regime’s real intentions and the claims of the US and its allies (for instance, that Syria wants to avoid any fallback from an eventual Hariri tribunal, and that it wants peace talks for the sake of talks rather than for the sake of peace). While it certainly doesn’t like being isolated, it is not really looking to become a US ally; had this been a goal, Syria would need to get a divorce from Iran, abandon the support of resistance groups in the region, and give up its pole position as the beating heart of Arabism. In other words, the Syrian regime would have to renege on most of its Baathist aims (relations with Iran being the least Arabist of all) and acknowledge that the sacrifices imposed on the Syrian people in the name of the conflict with Israel were not, after all, necessary. For the time being, this doesn’t seem to be on the tables. Furthermore, the carrots offered in return for so many concessions are simply not appetizing enough, especially as the regime is not really looking to become one more in a string of “moderate” Arab states bound to the US by treaties.
What the Syrian regime wants is much more simple: it wants to be acknowledged as a force in the region, and as an interested party whose cooperation must be sought. In return for this recognition, and for concerned parties to concede that Syria’s involvement in Lebanese and Palestinian affairs is a given, the regime claims it will help the US make an honorable exit out of Iraq, and continue helping in the “war on terror.”
The isolation strategy has clearly not worked, and the Syrian regime is proving to its many critics that it is the only option in town. Internal opposition in Syria has been completely stifled, and foreign critics have mostly come back bearing gifts. Those who remain reluctant to engage the regime (such as French president Jacques Chirac, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and of course American President George Bush) will all be long gone, and the Syrian regime will have shown, once more, its propensity for patience. For the time being, it is basking in the limelight it feels it deserves and considering the next possible scenarios when regime change finally happens on its critics' turf.
[ 97 comments ]
Message from Syrian Prisoners of Conscience
Sunday, April 29, 2007, 23:32
Update: Please see the blog of Syrian Brit for the original Arabic version of this letter.
I received the Arabic version of the following appeal from our brave Syrian prisoners of conscience. This is the English version as posted by Fares.
Note that Dr. Aref Dalila, whose case we discussed in some detail in the comments section of the last entry, is still in solitary confinement, 6 years on. For an idea of the terrible crime he committed to merit such barbaric treatment, read the last intervention Dr. Dalila made before he was silenced in September 2001. (I am working on a translation which I will post soon.)
From the Prisoners of Conscience in Damascus Central Prison Al Adra
We are prisoners of conscience and opinion in Damascus Central Prison, lawyer Anwar Al Bunni, writer Michel Kilo, Dr. Kamal Labwani, activists Mahmoud Issa, and Faek Al Mir, and Professor Aref Dalila who could not be reached as he spends his sixth year in solitary confinement. After the sentencing of lawyer Anwar Al Bunni on 24 April 2007, we would like to say thank you and greet our families, friends, and all the people, groups, committees, organizations, associations, parties and political assemblies of Arabs, Kurds and Assyrians in Syria and the Arab world. We thank and greet the official representatives, countries, media and websites that support us by protesting our trials and arrests, and denying the accusations against our colleague Anwar Al Bunni.
We would like to send our heartfelt greetings and thanks to all of you and hope that your noble and brave attitude will not stop only with denying these accusations and supporting our cause. Our case as prisoners of conscience is part of the continuing crisis of basic freedoms and human rights in Syria that began with the Emergency Law 44 years ago. This crisis reached its height in the 1980s and again today by an increase in tyranny, arrests and the suppression of fundamental freedoms.
Tens of thousands of Syrians have paid a horrible price, some with their lives, others with the loss of years and youth from inhumane prison conditions and cruel torture. Still more have suffered by being forced to escape the tyranny or enter into voluntary exile, another difficult experience. Other Syrians stayed, throwing salt on their wounds and binding their tongues to save themselves pain. Those that couldn’t live with their tongues tied faced a future in prison, homeless and alone. For the few people that climbed to the top of the tyranny and darkened Syrian society, they have contributed to the corruption, theft and poverty that have strangled the necks of the people.
The denial of fundamental human rights in Syria is the main case that we work for and your support for prisoners of conscience is part of this fight. Fighting for the release of these prisoners is a duty, not only to decrease their suffering and their families’ pain, but also to encourage others by knowing they are not alone. We must give society hope, making sure its doors and streets are not closed. With the power of hope it is possible to fight the crisis of freedom and human rights in Syria in a peaceful way.
Terrorism is the enemy of mankind and civilization itself. It flourishes in societies that lack freedom and close doors to peaceful expression, leaving violence as a way of expressing oneself. Inside these societies suffering from poverty, where they find no well being on earth they will turn to the heavens and the answers that it may provide them. The lack of basic freedoms and human rights coupled with poverty are two faces of the same coin in the Third World. Syria is at the forefront of totalitarian countries, ruled from an isolated point of view with its citizens either idle passengers or doomed to be labeled traitors
The lack of freedom, means of expression, political participation and accountability leads to the growth of corruption, despotism, looting of public funds, rampant poverty and the collapse of moral values. The real fight against terrorism must not only be about combating extremist ideas. These ideas have existed throughout history, though they will always remain on the periphery, isolated and shunned, unless they find fertile soil to take root and grow. If they are allowed to develop in the soil of society, they will spread like toxic plants, poisoning communities and innocent people.
Addressing the root causes of terrorism requires opening up pathways to free expression and the peaceful exchange of ideas. By giving people unfettered freedom we can blunt the sword of injustice, oppression and domination to grant full political participation, a hand in future decision-making, accountability, the preservation of equality and a life of dignity. This would make the world a safer place and improve international security.
Syrians have paid a high price for their rights and freedom and we hope to be the last group forced to pay this price to help the great Syrian people. To do this we need more than your solidarity and denunciations. We need constant and tireless efforts to compel Syrian authorities to respect human rights, international law and the treaties and agreements it has signed which demand freedom of expression and opinion. The release of political prisoners is a necessary first step, including the abolition of the State Emergency Law and other such laws like Decree 49 signed in 1980 or the Hasakah Accountability Decree of 1962. Syria must abolish the State Security Court, compensate those that have suffered, create an independent judiciary, end torture and hold perpetrators responsible. They must stop political arrests and ensure the freedom of the press, allowing political participation and the formation of parties, organizations and civil society.
They must stop the looting of public funds and policies of impoverishment and domination. However, these steps are just the beginning necessary to put Syria on the path to security and move towards development, progress and the protection of national unity that now suffers from division and tension. These rifts and divisions are now impossible to conceal, despite the dancing and celebrations and empty rhetoric about a healthy society that in reality is sick and suffering. As prisoners of conscience and opinion we are apprehensive about the future of our homeland, our children and our very decision to shape Syria’s future. However, we will not be deterred by threats, intimidation, and the repression of long years of imprisonment that we face to save our country and ourselves
Adra Prison. 28-4-2007
[ 87 comments ]
The heavy price of civility
Thursday, April 26, 2007, 13:00“Amnesty International considers Anwar al-Bunni to be a prisoner of conscience who has been tried on a charge that is politically-motivated and was brought against him because of his activities to defend human rights in Syria.”
That goes without saying. Amnesty has summarized it perfectly, and yet, nobody can pretend to have been surprised by this harsh sentence; it was, sadly, expected (not that this lessens the shock of hearing the verdict, as Yazan mentioned in the comments section), although I was told by some sources that he would be jailed for three years, not five.
It is an unmerited and unjustifiable sentence after an unconvincing sham of a trial and a crude campaign of psychological and physical abuse. In this day and age, such behavior that employs detainment, mistreatment and torture for an opinion, not an action, is simply uncivilized. In contrast, when we refer to our brave civil society activists, we should salute the civil even before the activist; so far, they have shown nothing but civility in opposition.
Nobody really expects the Syrian regime to act according to democratic, moralistic or enlightened standards; spare us the refrain that Syria is not Spain, Sweden or Switzerland – we know. Nor does anyone really believe the timing of this punishment for no crime is coincidental; we know that the regime can be obsessively timely when it wants to be.
It is no accident that this sentence should come so soon after the conclusion of the farce which the regime calls “elections” (wrongly “analyzed” by some as an attempt to consolidate power, because the regime’s full sovereignty on all things Syrian hardly needs consolidation), and which the Ministry of Information even more pathetically named “a democratic and patriotic wedding” (the latter, in my opinion, is infinitely more damaging to Syria than anything Anwar Bunni could have ever said). When even your closest ally’s media refers to it so disparagingly, any other ministry in any other country would have been shamed into dropping this ridiculous pomposity and sticking with real events.
But the regime has reached such a comfort level that it can scream ludicrous analogies over the rooftops, and, more importantly, add insult to injury to its citizens at numerous opportunities. How typical to announce draconian sentences just as an assembly convenes, squeezing puppets, profiteers and fools into 250 seats where rubber stamps, lists of slogans and instructions await, and from where new governments, decrees and decisions will be obediently applauded and embarrassingly praised.
Indeed, it is a mistake to conclude that the regime acts more harshly when it is under pressure; on the contrary, it is never so severe as when it has the time to "take care" of its citizens.
During the so-called Damascus Spring and the ensuing Damascus Winter, pre-9/11, before Afghanistan, before Iraq, when today’s March 14 leaders were singing the praises of Syria’s entire ruling class and bowing to representatives big and small, when the nouveau régime was thought to be full of promise and Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and other EU leaders couldn’t wait to take Bashar Assad under their wing, when George W. Bush was mostly concentrating on his own turf, this was the period when Syrian civil society activists were harrassed and arrested, including two prominent MPs who had their parliamentary immunity revoked. Syria was not under pressure then, but this did not save Riad Seif, Mamoun Homsi and Aref Dalila.
Western “observers” who attended their “trials” didn’t really bother themselves with the fate of these brave men. Apart from the obligatory mild statements, the life of a few Syrians really mattered as much as “a zero to the left” when compared to all the possibilities of doing business with the regime.
Five years later, when Michel Kilo, Anwar Bunni and Mahmoud Issa were thrown into jail, the regime was also not under pressure. On the contrary, it was coming out of a bind, feeling stronger than before, having survived the most amazing developments at its doorsteps, from every direction, and realizing that there was going to be no regime change, come hell or high water. By the time Anwar Bunni was “tried” and sentenced, the regime had enjoyed an unexpected proxy victory over Israel, watched the Iraq Study Group demand its engagement, approved several technical reports by the Hariri inquiry, kissed and made up with the Saudi regime, and welcomed numerous senior EU officials and American politicians including Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It was even waiting for Ban Ki Moon to arrive.
The regime is under no pressure, internally or externally, and these are the times when its sting is most painful. Whether they come as payback or as warnings, the regime’s selected punishments serve their purpose and intimidate most others into a frustrated silence, reminding them that having an opinion can be very expensive, and very damaging.
Anwar Bunni has just found out he will linger in jail for a total of five years. Soon, Michel Kilo will hear the same accusation, and in all likelihood the same sentence. This is no time for regime apologists to resort to moot rationalizations (“they knew what they were doing since this is not Sweden”), mindless repetitions (“long term pressure on Syria’s Arabist stance has not ended”) or, even worse, defamation of the opposition (“they are disorganized and offer no real plan or alternative”) - the latter, in particular, being the most ridiculous and the most insultingly immature reaction of them all. Many people have heavy hearts when such news emerge, and many will have no patience for this kind of false naïveté which gives the regime great satisfaction.
Unfortunately, such apologists are forgetting that “divide and rule” is not purely a concept used by foreign imperialists. If only to protect and defend our Syria, let alone respect human rights and uphold civil liberties, the absolute minimum civility we can all show is not idiotically waving flags and slogans, but showing solidarity with our compatriots.
[ 76 comments ]
Media exercises for aspiring Middle East hacks
Saturday, April 21, 2007, 02:08Some events this week would serve as good homework material for aspiring media students, especially those with fleeting interest in the Middle East. Here’s a sample lesson.
Case 1: John McCain, Republican senator, aspiring presidential candidate (and stand-up comedian and Beach Boy wannabe in his spare time), answered a question about whether the US would send an “airmail message” to Tehran (how subtle) by singing the Beach Boys’ classic song Barbara Ann with the lyrics “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.” The audience (not knowing the "joke" was actually already done before) thought it was hilarious and erupted into laughter. Asked if his “joke” was insensitive, McCain answered by asking: "Insensitive to what? The Iranians?"God forbid. Following outrage by a few people, including the liberal group MoveOn.org, the McCain campaign told critics to “get a life” and remembered to reiterate his belief that “we cannot allow Iran to destroy Israel.”
Question for the class: If another presidential candidate (or anyone else, for that matter) had attempted a similar feat with a song rhyming with Israel, would the “get a life” response be acceptable?
Case 2: Cho Seung-Hui, the maniac who murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech this week, sent NBC News some documents before the massacre. In the mad diatribe were the following words: “Thanks to you, I die, like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people.” He has not been branded a Christian fundamentalist, nor has his religion even been a factor in reporting the event.
Question for the class: Replace the name “Jesus Christ” with “Muhammad” in a similar sentence to discuss the impact on mainstream media, and whether religion would have then found its way to the coverage.
Case 3: On the madman’s arm was a tattoo with the words “Ismail Ax,” two words which have triggered a frenzy of “analysis” in blogs and mainstream media alike. One repeated theory is that it is meant to refer to the Quran’s story of Ibrahim (Abraham in the Bible) when he smashed idols with an ax. Unfortunately, this theory does not explain why the tattoo reads Ismail and not Ibrahim.
Question for the class: Given that no Islamic link seems to have been found yet for a number of disappointed bloggers who don’t believe this tragedy can be explained by madness alone, propose a research method to establish appropriate linkage with the “war on terror.”
Case 4: Also this week, the following events took place in the Middle East, but were hardly covered by mainstream media. Discuss why for extra credit.
Mass killings in Iraq.
Lawlessness in Gaza.
The new separation wall in Baghdad.
Israeli dispossession of Palestinian homes.
Catastrophe in Mogadishu.
Plastic surgery loans in Lebanon.
[ 41 comments ]
Liz who? Ibrahim what???
Friday, April 13, 2007, 02:17I’ll cut to the chase: who the hell are Liz Cheney and Ibrahim Suleiman to opine on Syria, on who should talk to Syria, on what should be done to Syria, and on what Syria should be doing? What exactly are their credentials? Apart from family ties, that is?
Like it wasn’t bad enough having one Cheney messing up our lives, there’s now another trying to impose a very one-sided reading of just about everything going on in the Middle East – without mentioning the evil planners who caused so much suffering there (obviously, because that would mean washing the family’s dirty laundry in public). Ms. Cheney wants to tell freedom-loving readers “The truth about Syria,” which ends up being mostly a list of the assassinations of the various Lebanese who were all anti-Syria (get it?) through 6 paragraphs. That in itself is supposed to explain why “Syria” (as a whole) is guilty of these murders – who needs investigations, when you think about it?
While this summary would probably be refused by the publishers of “Middle East Politics for Idiots” (a book that I think is really needed), this is clearly not an impediment for the Washington Post and its sinking standards (including the failure to identify the author as the daughter of the Vice President), which allow for embarrassingly kitschy descriptions such as “Lebanon’s freedom forces” (March 14 for you and I) and weird analysis explaining that “the risks to you of ending Syria’s occupation will be high” when the Syrian troops had in fact already withdrawn and the "risk" had already been taken (after which it becomes "consequences"). Unfortunately, Cheney doesn’t explain who exactly in Lebanon was supposed to represent Jefferson, Adams and Madison, so knock yourselves out.
Two particular sentences cracked me up in this so-called opinion piece which doesn’t burden itself with trivial matters like facts. The first funny sentence is “Arab leaders should stop receiving Bashar al-Assad.” Because …? Because they’re not as “outlaw” as the Syrian regime? Because they themselves don't interfere or have interests in the region? Because they are beacons of democracy and freedom? Because they were actually elected to their positions? Because they are big on feminism, freedom of speech and freedom of worship? Because they apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
The second really hilarious sentence is “The Security Council should also hold Syria accountable for its ongoing violations of existing resolutions.” Can’t argue with that … if only it read “every country” instead. Of course, the country currently in violation of the highest number of resolutions is Israel (which I believe is flouting 68 resolutions at last count).
Here’s a thought. As you read Cheney’s article, especially towards the last couple of paragraphs, replace the words Syria and Syrian with Israel and Israeli, the word Damascus with Tel Aviv, and the words Lebanon and Lebanese with Palestine and Palestinian. At least it would be a lot more factual, and proven; for example, the last sentence of Cheney’s piece would read that “Conducting diplomacy with the regime in Tel Aviv while they kill Palestinian democrats is not only irresponsible, it is shameful.” But then, of course, the freedom forces bloggers wouldn’t be able to quote it ad nauseam as proof of America’s concern for Lebanon.
As for this Ibrahim Suleiman fellow who is really getting more suspicious, and whose only saving grace seems to be the fact that he is not listening to the Cheneys and their gang, my initial opinion of his bright ideas has merely been confirmed, or rather strengthened, after seeing him give a press conference in the King David Hotel, of all places.
The man who, may I remind you if you forgot my entry on the “picnic in the park white paper,” actually believes Dennis Ross should be given the Nobel Peace Prize, has now become the official Peace Park Plan Peddler, regardless of the ridiculous indignant denials from the Syrian regime. He clearly has the confidence to state that peace is possible withing 6 months, and to divulge that Syria refused to open a second front during Israel's barbaric assault on Lebanon last summer, a loaded declaration on which I will not comment for the moment, pending more information.
While Suleiman doesn’t mention who exactly are his contacts in the Syrian regime, it isn’t very difficult to guess; as with Cheney, the family name does ring a bell, doesn’t it? This “independent” endeavor stinks to high heaven and I don’t like it.
[ 84 comments ]
The Pelosi pandemonium
Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 14:00There are good news and bad news to report after Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Damascus. The good news is that it seems to prove that there is no such thing as bad publicity (mostly for Syria), that more Americans are now vaguely aware of a place called Syria, and that some have even understood the meaning of “the road to Damascus” in its original and current political sense. The bad news is that many now think we actually killed John The Baptist, decapitated him and burried his head in the Omayyad Mosque.
Against my better judgement, I browsed some popular right wing blogs discussing the issue; the comments alone about Pelosi wearing a scarf as she visited Omayyad Mosque would scare the living daylights out of any normal person. When several level-headed and knowledgeable people mentioned that it was only a sign of respect, just as women wear a head cover to meet with the Pope, or as one would wear appropriate attire to enter a church or a synagogue, they would be chastised with the admonition that there is no moral equivalence between those and a mosque! To read these disparaging comments and the sheer ignorance, hatred and aggressiveness about all things Islamic, Arab and female was truly an eye opener, even for someone who follows media as closely as I do.
Still, most Republicans and neocons (including those in Lebanon) and the usual array of "independent" journalists (especially those from Lebanon) were simply infuriated by the visit. In other words, it was a highly successful PR coup for Syria, regime and country alike!
In the short term, this visit changes absolutely nothing (this is obviously not the first time members of Congress or government officials visit Syria recently), but holds many benefits for all involved, summarized herewith very superficially. The AIPAC-fearing/loving/abiding Pelosi and her cohort of Democrats show a reasonable approach to international relations (while safegarding Israel’s interests) and a willingness to reconsider America’s position, following the advice of experts (like those of the Iraq Study Group), hoping this diplomatic evidence can put Democrats back in the game as wiser strategists for Iraq. The Bush administration and its foreign policy “gurus” show that they are adamant about dealing with “rogue states” and score points against unruly Democrats, while reaping, behind the scenes, the benefits of actually engaging with Syria.
And last but not least, the Syrian regime, in all innocence, shows how indispensable it is, how right it was to be “steadfast” and how well this reflects its wisdom on all other issues. Hey, the Syrian regime can even claim to have caused ripples on Capitol Hill, in the White House, and in practically every major and semi-major publication in the US, getting Republicans and Democrats to actually debate (or at least lecture each other) on a new subject that touches on most Middle East problems. Not bad!
All of the above are milking this visit to suit their particular agenda, and it seems that all are succeeding on their own respective turfs, judging by the amount of column inches and blog entries dedicated to the affair. Fellow blogger George Ajjan, an American Republican of Syrian extraction, as he describes himself (and to whom I should clarify that I am NOT British-Syrian … and if I were, I would be Syrian-British) has a nice entry on the subject, simultaneously showing extreme distaste of Pelosi while seemingly approving the ultimate benefit of talking to Syria, if only for America’s sake.
There are numerous articles on the subject in mainstream media which I haven’t bothered to read, but I found the language of this Washington Post editorial, certainly not its usual fare, overly indignant and undiplomatic, demonstrating the significance of this whole Syriagate affair which seems to be just beginning.
For the Lebanese, of course, at least the “life loving” ones, things don’t look so rosy, regardless of their predictions of impending doom for Syria, and especially after the Arab summit which was a success for Syria no matter which way you look at it. The collective reaction of March 14 (aka they who love life, unlike the rest of us apparently) seems to have been to warn the Syrians: don’t be so smug, this just proves that you are very weak, or something to that effect. How logical.
In fact, the Daily Star insists that Syria had better not believe this fantasy, but the livid tone of the editorial seems to show that the paper itself believes the contrary, and that Syria’s isolation is effectively “caduque” (to quote the quintessential “irrelevant” and isolated leader). Still, they tell us that politicians visiting Lebanon come to “support Lebanon” and prove its importance, but politicians visiting Syria come to “send a strong message” and prove its weakness. Clutching at straws, they pick and choose the statements that will “prove” that the Hariri investigation is neither forgiven nor forgotten, that the tribunal is coming come hell or high water, and that the end is nigh. These are the people probably praying that Président Sarkozy, knowing his transatlantic political leanings and hoping the Chirac legacy will include Lebanon’s care, will conduct a smooth transition with the next American administration. (I think Sarko – and Ségo, for that matter – have more urging matters in mind, but who am I to break an illusion.) They are also the people probably hoping for “4 more years” of the same team (give or take a Bush) given the Democrats’ scandalous propensity to talk to Syrians.
And that’s the shocking truth: it’s not just about the Syrian regime … it’s about the Syrian people as well, which is definitely less amusing. Indeed, the reactions to Pelosi’s little tour of Old Damascus were often offensive, and not only in the barrage of insults she received for merely wearing a headscarf. Most commentators were beside themselves with fury at the fact that Pelosi actually talked to Syrians and was received so well by them – as visitors usually are. Obviously, such images do nothing for the continued portrayal of backward Syrians (especially as compared to their “life-loving” neighbors) and seem to show a human side they would rather leave undiscovered. In a way, it was even amusing to see how incensed they were by the warm, jovial, generous reception she got; how dare Damascus compete with more “worldly” and “sophisticated” capitals, heh? Who the hell do these Damascenes think they are, talking to Nancy Pelosi?
Nancy Pelosi’s stopover in Damascus managed to get most of America’s political and media circles to discuss Syria’s delicate situation, and to rehash the basic gripes with the country. Frankly, I was surprised to see surprise at Pelosi’s disregard for the appalling human rights situation in Syria (and only in Syria – the other countries she visited seem to be paragons of humanity). Regardless of whether or not the Speaker of the House is entitled to an opinion on the matter, what exactly did we expect from a Congress that has for the past few years fearfully acquiesced every one of Bush’s evil plans (from invasion to invasion), freedom-curtailing legislation (Patriot Act, anyone?) and liberal interpretations of law to suit specific American whims (Guantanamo to name but one)? Given their record on Israel alone, it is simply naïve to ask someone like Pelosi or Lantos to show concern for our brave prisoners of conscience, whose fate tragically continues to slip slowly from the public’s attention as the regime toys around with their lives.
As for Israel and the “message” sent or not sent via Pelosi to Syria, this is clearly an evolving story with fresh messengers popping up every now and then, but we should not underestimate the ties that bind Pelosi’s group to Israel’s advocates back home. If she had a message, it first came from Washington’s lobby, via Tel Aviv, and the bargaining over a certain price to pay probably didn’t just take place in Souq Al Hamidieh! I am sure we will have the opportunity to discuss this at a later stage.
In any case, I don’t know by what strange coincidence the ICG’s latest report deals with the subject of Syrian-Israeli talks You can see for yourself, and I may or may not have the time to dissect in detail, but the short of it is that I find it ridiculous. As usual, the onus is on the other, never on Israel, to provide every single reassurance. This is not how you resolve conflicts. I had already written my objections to ICG’s Arab-Israeli conflict solution in The Guardian’s CIF; let me tell you, I am even less impressed with how they plan to treat the specific Syrian case! More soon, if I get around to it.
[ 16 comments ]
Getting away with nonsense
Tuesday, April 10, 2007, 01:22SANA has a rather strange “quote” which I’d like to share with you, quoting it verbatim: “British Magazine of "The ECONOMIST" said that Syria, by cleverness and patience of President Bashar al-Assad overcame circumstances and pressures put on her.” For once, I’m not going to comment on syntax or grammar (I give up) given that the content is actually interesting in itself. Now call me finicky, but I had already read the piece in the actual Economist to which SANA “writers” refer, and which they only discovered on Monday (somebody better tell them that it actually comes out on Fridays), titled “Has he got away with it?”
In fact, I have this week’s issue next to me on the desk, and I can assure you that the closest - and this is really stretching it – part of the article one could consider as their “source” is the following sentence: “He owes his new lease on political life to the incompetence or fatigue of his enemies, to clever diplomatic footwork and to lucky circumstances.” Not quite the same, is it? Talk about paraphrasing.
Someone at the Ministry of “Information” should do something about this; it may seem like peanuts when looking at the big picture, but media is such a vital element of politics these days. Syria gets enough flak as it is for real events and real statements: is it really necessary to go to these extremes about something anyone can check? Honestly, Syrian officials who allow this to happen deserve the ridicule they receive, but Syrian people inevitably get dumped with the lot and it's getting tiring.
I can’t remember if I mentioned it in this blog, but I once literally asked the previous Minister of Information, Mehdi Dakhlallah, to shut down the online English section of SANA until they got their act together. He told me he couldn’t fire a single person, and that there was really nothing he could do about it. (He also told me not to read Israeli papers, and I really should write more about that meeting we had! Or have I already?) I wonder if Muhsin Bilal has the same power, or lack thereof; if so, what’s the point of the ministry anyway? Circulating miscellaneous statements about visiting dignitaries (I'll eventually get to Pelosi's visit, because there are actually a couple of interesting things about it) is not much of a remit, and misquoting respected publications is just so absurd. So, Mr. Minister, what are you going to do about it?
[ 8 comments ]
Damascus and Sham’s heritage are under attack
Sunday, March 25, 2007, 19:19
There is a common denominator between the name of the new Syrian car and the continuing “modernization” in Old Damascus; the first is an incult insult, the other an irreversible injury, and both illustrate how Syrian authorities are simultaneously misappropriating the name of Sham and abusing its heritage.
I cringed when I read the name of the latest Iranian-Syrian venture: is this car assembled in Syria so magnificent that it is worthy of the name Sham, or has this historical name been so degraded, whether out of ignorance or by design, to allow its association with an ordinary, mechanical object?
It is obviously high time my country produced something other than chewing gum and paper tissues, in addition to some successful manufacturing outside the field of fast moving consumer goods (pharmaceuticals and cotton goods are such cases). It is also high time that some Syrians, at last, may begin to at least dream about owning a car one day, even though Mohamed Imadi (at the time Minister of Economy, and now in charge of setting up a Stock Exchange) once explained that cars, like houses, were a luxury.
But when the makers brainstormed (as if) to list possible names for this car, this one should not have been an option. Sham, a name bursting with significance and connotations, history and memories, passion, glory and even melancholy, is to become synonymous with a vulgar vehicle whose specifications can’t possibly do justice to the weight of meanings it carries. If this is the name chosen for a car that is merely assembled in Syria, what would they have baptized something like the TGV or Airbus? Not that we need to pose this hypothetical question, given that 40 years of Baathist education have ensured that graduates of this system are mostly concerned with faithfully parroting the slogans that will give them a passing grade, a promotion, or a lucrative connection. Pity the nation indeed …
The Syrian authorities should get over this unfortunate obsession with such pomposity that tries to hide, unsuccessfully, an inferiority complex (teamed with a highly dubious reading – and appropriation - of history) and start taking lessons from the communication professionals. Even if they don’t care about the Syrian people’s wishes, for the time being, they could at least aspire to become image-savvy, if only for the reputation of the country as a whole. When producing El Nasr, Egyptians didn’t think of calling it the Alexandria, the Ramses or the Cheops, for example. Nor did the Iranians call their original product Persepolis. Syria’s Cham Palace Hotels (with the more elegant and less awkward French spelling) can at least pretend they are offering a five star service, which I assume is not the case of this particular sham. Just think: if this is the name of the basic model, what will the top of the line, full option version be called?
All this complaining because of a mere car? Yes, because it’s emblematic of many aspects of current Syrian officialdom. The Syrian authorities keep sticking totally inappropriate, grandiose labels to undeserving things and issues. Even worse, they do not realize that this has the opposite effect, and that they are in fact over-promoting mediocrity.
Historical names like Sham, or Cham, are more suited to public libraries, opera houses or concert halls, it at all. Often, however, these don’t need such endorsements to be special: Vienna’s Staatsoper, surely one of the world’s most magnificent opera houses (or indeed buildings of any kind) or its Konzerthaus, from where the New Year’s Day concert is broadcast to tens of millions of homes every year, didn’t need to burden themselves with names from the Austro-Hungarian empire’s riches to be exceptional. More recently, in Paris, the library that François Mitterrand bequeathed to his country was simply la Très Grande Bibliothèque. None of these man-made structures or things borrowed a name laden with historical perspective, or even simply a name; perhaps the regime should rethink its naming strategy with regards to a number of items, and above all leave the historic names, and historic sites, to history. Which brings us to the injury.
The liberties taken with our historical Sham would have been upsetting and insulting enough had they been limited to the name. But both Bilad Al Sham and our present day Sham, as we fondly call our beloved Damascus, have fallen prey to questionable schemes that will cause the greatest, irreparable harm. Native Damascenes are surely not the only ones to be horrified by the flagrant abuses, in every sense of the word, that are turning this ancient oasis of conviviality into a monstrous agglomeration with no respect for the massive responsibility that history places on all civilizations and all rulers, be they chosen or self-imposed.
The so-called modernization plans for the city are the real sham here. There are no philanthropists in this story, and there are no well-meaning but misguided millionaires accidentally damaging historic quarters in order to donate a school, a hospital or modern homes for the countless needy. There are only ruthless people who keep digging deeper into the rich layers of Syria’s past, having already skimmed off the cream of Syrians’ present and future. No amount of investment and vague promises of job creations can disguise the ultimate motives, or can justify the regime’s cavalier approach with our heritage, damaging the core and the soul of our old city.
Damascus already has the dubious attribute of having one of the world’s most expensive real estate, with house prices rivaling Paris and London in certain areas of the city which are certainly out of the league of most Damascenes. Shouldn’t the government begin to concern itself with that problem first, before pretending to “improve” things elsewhere?
But the issue of Old Damascus goes beyond the rights of the people who live and work there, and who are to be uprooted and sent packing to the ever more distant, and ever more depressing, suburbs of Damascus. Indeed, this is about the rights of all Damascenes, all Syrians, and all the heirs to this fantastic heritage. This is about the intense emotions cities like Old Damascus have provoked in compatriots and Damascus lovers like Nizar Qabbani or Ulfat Idilbi, amongst numerous others, who in turn immortalized their infatuations to make us yearn even more for things we took for granted, like countless writers did before them, decades and centuries ago.
Syria’s “responsibles” are acting with complete impunity … and complete irresponsibility. They have allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to deposit piles of money for the right to “modernize” or “beautify” places that need neither modernization nor beautification. As I already mentioned in this blog last year, high fashion already found its way to The Street Called Straight and there is clearly no heads or tails to the so-called “plans” of Damascus Municipality in its blind ignorance and uncivilized attempt to appear enlightened.
Nobody has the right to treat one of the world’s oldest, if not the oldest, cities with such disrespect, greed and ignorance. No building complex or structure of any kind can justify the continued tearing down of walls that have stood the test of time, only to fall victim to a vulgar demolition crew. I have seen with my own eyes, guided by a friend who happens to be an internationally-known authority on Islamic architecture, the permanent damage done to the great Omayad Mosque, which has been disfigured by ignorant “repairs” that have not been faithful to the original. Are we going to allow such rash behavior to continue all over the old city? All our region’s heritage is priceless and should be safeguarded for future generations, but as a native Damascene I can’t hide the special place in my heart reserved for my Sham.
This online petition to save Damascus is an honest attempt to draw international attention to this problem. While I will gladly add my name to any such initiatives, hoping that UNESCO will put immense pressure on the Syrian government to prevent the destruction of a World Heritage Site, I also believe this is a battle we must fight within our borders, and this is a petition that must be taken to the highest authorities within Syria, who are now tearing down the wrong walls!
Legend has it that Prophet Mohammad refused to enter Damascus after admiring it from Mount Qassioun, as one only enters paradise once; today, tragically, he would have numerous different reasons for refusing to enter it.
Addendum: Fellow blogger Gottfried was kind enough to send a couple of links regarding the demolitions in Old Damascus, which I only saw after posting the above. Please visit his blog here for more information.
[ 67 comments ]
Syrian-Israeli peace? Not if the US has a say, and it does!
Saturday, February 24, 2007, 09:54My latest article on the Syrian-Israeli conflict came out on Thursday, before the news of Condoleezza Rice’s insistence on her government’s position. It has been revealed that the United States demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria, as detailed in this Haaretz article. While this will undoubtedly make a lot of people happy, I was asking, rather, whether America’s actions were not really counter-productive; you be the judge.
Interestingly, on the issue of timing, this report from UPI (which for some reason mentions my father) seems to imply I wrote my article in response to the revelation.
Unless there are huge news, there will probably be very light posting, if any, until mid-March because I am travelling. But commenting is always on.
America's veto on Syrian- Israeli talks is counter-productive
For years, unlike the other thorny issues that form the Arab-Israel conflict, the status of the Golan Heights hasn't triggered a sense of urgency in any party. Strangely, this apparent nonchalance also applies to Syria.
Apart from a brief joint Syrian-Egyptian effort in 1973 to retrieve territories invaded by Israel in 1967, the important battles in the Syrian-Israeli conflict have not been fought on the Golan Heights, but in other arenas and even through proxies. This doesn't mean that its importance has not been recognized or that resolving the issue has not been attempted; numerous interventions by successive American administrations have come and gone, but breakthroughs were always prevented by the changing agendas of the people who could make them happen.
Forty years on, and 15 years after an unprecedented peace process was launched with the Madrid Peace Conference, we seem to have reached an inexplicable impasse again. While Syria has repeatedly indicated it was willing to restart negotiations unconditionally (implying the progress made with the so-called Rabin deposit and the near-agreement with Barak at Wye River could be scratched), Israel has time and again rejected these advances, fully supported by the US, in an erratic and ambiguous attitude serving no long-term purpose.
More recently, any chance of Israeli dedication to the matter has been completely put to rest by the intransigence of the Bush administration, which instructed all its allies to turn a cold shoulder toward Syria, hoping to impose a new isolation. The present administration, in fact, has engineered the most significant change in American policy toward Syria since the 1980s, a change that predates both the Lebanon file beginning with UNSC Resolution 1559 and the invasion of Iraq, the two main current points of contention between the US and Syria. After 9/11, and after having accepted Syrian intelligence cooperation, Washington was transformed from a sponsor of the Syrian-Israeli peace track into a promoter of the Syria Accountability Act.
America's unjustified indifference to the issue of the Golan Heights and its shameless selectiveness in applying international law are neither new nor surprising, given its life-long blind support of Israel. In the circumstances surrounding the Middle East today, however, such behavior is foolish and counter-productive, for a peace settlement with Syria is a prerequisite to comprehensive calm.
The Bush administration has accused the Syrian regime of every possible crime and misdemeanor in the region, blaming Damascus for problems in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, to mention only the most pressing issues. If Washington is simply looking for a scapegoat, one can only wonder about the benefits of such conduct. But if it really believes that Syrian actions are that powerful, then that is all the more reason to "force" Syria to behave according to American parameters. This could be done in one of two ways: threats, pressure and sanctions (the current modus operandi of the Bush administration), or engagement and promises of mutual benefits. In other words, for the US, Syria can either be beaten into submission, which hasn't been effective until now, or it can be enticed somewhat into the American sphere of influence.
It has been suggested that "offering" negotiations on the Golan Heights in return for Syrian assistance on other problematic fronts could help achieve several American goals in the region, including a divorce between Syria and Iran, a distancing from Palestinian radical factions, a relaxation of open interference in Lebanon and, most importantly, a pro-active role in the pacification of Iraq. But simultaneously, there are allegations that the Syrian regime is not serious about peace and only wants to escape isolation by negotiating, which is the line that Washington has chosen as its premise.
Such reasoning, such polarization into "us or them", only serves to perpetuate the deadlock. Syria is being accused of wanting to negotiate for negotiations' sake, but Israel and the US themselves are only talking peace to achieve other goals.
Furthermore, the long-awaited return of the Golan Heights to Syria should not be marketed as a reward offered to Syria for "good behavior" in other arenas. Unless this conflict is resolved to the letter of the international law that clearly defines its ownership and its borders, the US will only be playing with fire. Turning a national right into a potential fringe benefit is bad politics, especially when the peddler has repeatedly proven its bias in the case.
There never was a bad time to rekindle a peace process, especially in a region where lack of peace doesn't merely entail frosty relations, but rather ongoing hostilities. Every possible scenario has already passed: active war, quiet non-belligerence and non-peace, rightist and leftist governments in Israel, on and off American involvement, bilateral and multilateral negotiations, resolutions and peace initiatives. The only thing that hasn't been tried yet is compelling Israel to commit to international law and United Nations resolutions; in the case of Syria, this means UNSC Resolutions 242, 338 and 497, among others.
Sooner or later, Israel must give back the land it has illegally invaded and annexed, an inevitability that the Israeli political class understands full well. Creative solutions to circumvent the obligatory full return of the Golan Heights (such as the dubious non-paper revealed recently by Haaretz) cannot work, and yet Washington seems to object even to that. By needlessly perpetuating the status quo, and by rejecting the sound advice offered by the Iraq Study Group to engage with Syria, isn't Washington foolishly shooting itself in the foot? - Published 22/2/2007 © bitterlemons-international.org
Rime Allaf is associate fellow at London's Chatham House.
[ 25 comments ]
Flag fatigue and flawed fancies
Thursday, February 22, 2007, 22:51Syria and Lebanon watchers know that March is becoming a busy month politically, even somewhat crowded, what with the movements of “March 8” (a defining date both for the Baath and for Hizbullah), “March 14” and now, not to be outdone, "March 11." While the March 11 date is in itself part of the movement’s raison d’être, and thus understandable, an even better date for a regional movement might be “March 21,” to capitalize on the notion of spring and rebirth (rebirth from the rebirth of the Baath itself, of course). In the Arab world, March 21 is also Mother’s Day, which can bring countless positive connotations to a movement of change from Big Brother towards the compassionate realism of Mother. Something like March 21 sounds nice for a real Renaissance, wouldn’t you say?
There’s still the availability of other months, such as February for instance, although it is also gearing up to be full of political activities and ever more daring (some might say suicidal) statements of position, which is necessarily not a bad attribute for a political movement in normal circumstances. Unfortunately, most of these activities were manifested with the tiresome and highly unoriginal flag waving mania. While I will always continue to virtually wave the Palestinian flag (or at least pin it right here on this blog), I confess that both Lebanese and Syrians have turned me off flags for a long time. I don’t think I can bear anymore to see crowds of any political camp, on either side of the border, robotically waving flags in their thousands, identical photos in their hundreds, and chanting ever more hair-raisingly kitschy anthems to one cause, to one leader, to one nation … or to another. All this for a massive deadlock which neither side is capable of tipping. For all the outside support each side is getting, for all the promises of civil disobedience it is quite obvious that Nasrallah couldn’t deliver on his promises (internally, that is) – apart from creating a total freeze that has merely upset even many of his own supporters - and that Siniora is even less capable of “prime ministering” the country, no matter how his superiors push him.
So how long can this corny “my crowd is bigger than your crowd” game go on? I don’t know about you, but I’m all flagged out. And all speeched out as well, especially after having rediscovered that the Lebanese do empty rhetoric (Arabist, nationalist and other) as competently as your leading Baathist, as boringly as your leading regime sycophant, and as convincingly as SANA. Could Saad Hariri have been any less uninspiring? Instead of moving forward, everyone seems to be stepping backward in time and adopting the most ridiculous steadfastness (oh, that hated word) and self-righteousness.
The latter, of course, is somewhat difficult to achieve when the speaker’s entire brain seems to be occupied by the “originality” of the insults being hurled across the border ... and being hurled straight back of course. I think this last point is worth examining, and not because it is unheard of for members of one regime to attack the president of another, and a “brotherly” country to boot, the symbol (whether we like him or not, and I don’t) of a cause many of us hold dear. You surely all remember Mustapha Tlass notoriously calling Yasser Arafat the son of 60,000 … well, you probably saw it for yourself since it was a televised speech. So this is not totally new.
But in the case of the cohort of warlords (mainly Jumblatt and Geagea) going to such extremes, one has to wonder: do the March 14 leaders know something we don’t know? The categorical crude denunciations of Bashar Assad imply that they are totally confident that they never need to work with him, to talk to him, or to negotiate with him again. Rightly or wrongly, they seem confident that there will be an international tribunal, under Chapter VII even, and that the Syrian regime will be found guilty of Hariri’s assassination. At the very least, they are behaving and orating according to this scenario, throwing caution to the wind and not leaving place for alternative readings of the situation.
For all their supposed experience with the Syrian regime, it seems to me that these people simply don’t know with whom they’re dealing! If I were in their shoes, I would not burn all my bridges – especially knowing the history of the region.
It’s true that the Syrian regime appears to be doing everything it can to avoid the tribunal, an attitude most eager analysts are taking as a de facto admission of guilt. While this is still a big possibility, in spite of the tame technical reports submitted by Serge Brammertz, I think it is time to consider other possible explanations for the regime’s apparent obsession with sabotaging said tribunal; amongst others, there is a long list of scores the regime wants to settle.
Whatever happens, the regime will never, ever forget, let alone forgive, the Lebanese politicians/warlords who went running to Bush and Chirac and precipitated the humiliating, hurried Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon with 1559 – the first time a Security Council resolution was passed putting Syria in the wrong. Likewise, the regime will never forget, let alone forgive, the immediate, loud accusations of Syrian leaders every time something went astray in Lebanon, regardless of its actual involvement. In other words, whether or not it actually had a hand in all this chaos is moot here: the regime won’t let go of the fact that it alone was blamed so publicly by rebelling former minions. As far as the Syrians are concerned, lèse-majesté began a long time before the ridiculous insults of this February 14 crowd. The very least the Syrian regime will do, then, is thwart the plans of Lebanese opponents at every possible opportunity, and the Hariri tribunal’s centrality in the latters’ agenda makes it the perfect target. Here’s a big if: if the tribunal is indeed established, and if the Syrians are not found to be guilty, there is going to be hell to pay (regardless of the truth).
But the March 14 leaders seem to be assured of eventual victory, repeating that the Syrians are responsible for all these actions because they are isolated and weak. And here again they are wrong. How little they know the Syrian regime; it is when it feels strongest that it turns its attention to the little annoyances that have been piling up, out of pure spite sometimes. Take the example of civil society activists who have become long suffering prisoners of conscience at a time when they posed absolutely no threat to the regime (not that they had ever posed a threat). There is the worrying case of our respected friend Michel Kilo being left waiting for a process in vain, or the terrible case of Anwar Bunni who was not only beaten in jail, but who is now said to be facing the removal of his citizenship, a possibility that his Syrian lawyer colleagues didn’t deem important enough to protest, given they were too busy striking to denounce Zionist and American campaigns. Meanwhile, Aref Dalila continues to languish in solitary confinement in appalling health conditions. None of these brave men really poses a threat to the regime, but they are being hounded even in their confinement. Kilo and Bunni are particularly relevant to the “revenge for Lebanon” scenario, given that the excuse for their arrest was the Damascus-Beirut declaration - which I remind you Lebanese “activists” hardly deigned to co-sign.
Revenge is a dish best eaten cold, but there are so many instances when the regime couldn’t wait to impose the harshest punishment it could to those who dared affront it. Remember the blockade of Lebanon, and remember the subsequent easing of import restrictions on the Syrian economy, made just in time for the Lebanese one to suffer even more. And there are countless such examples, many already mentioned in this blog.
Syrian regime self-confidence continues to grow, regardless of what some people would have us believe. Is it confident enough to prepare a new law which Dardari says would make the imposition of a state of emergency significantly more difficult? I’ll believe that when I see it (not forgetting that actuals laws never meant anything when a regime crony wants to have his way), but in the meantime, I don’t really see the isolation gleefully announced in some quarters, nor the supposed fear of the regime. On the contrary, the regime feels stronger than before and even has a series of “elections” coming up to prove to the world how popular and democratically-inclined it really is. The more confident it feels, the more time and attention it devotes to its presentation. Syrian media now frequently refers to the president as “fakhamat al ra’is” and not “siyadet al ra’is” anymore – socialism and proletariat be damned. This is significant.
And Syrian television news, while we’re on the subject of media, has undergone an umpteenth exercise of modernization and development (not reform, you see, it’s not needed), changing the static reddish background (too socialist perhaps?) to a busy bluish one, imagining it is good for its credibility. They feel good, so they try to make it look good as well. Well, I’m going to go out on a limb and give the Ministry of “Information” some free marketing advice: nothing kills a bad product like good advertising. No matter how many times it is underlined. (If you don’t follow SANA regularly, you may be a lot saner than I am, but you won’t know that the verb “underline” in all its tenses is the most popular word there, at least in the “English” section where everyone is always underlining the importance, steadfastness and nobility of Syria.)
You don’t need to follow Syrian news to realize that the regime is far from cowering in its corner at the thought of an eventual Hariri tribunal. Which brings us back to the invective of February 14 and the self-confidence of March 14-ers: what do they know? They’d better hope they are right, because they now have burned all the bridges behind them, and the Syrian regime was never the forgiving type; the Syrian people know it, and the Lebanese politicians should know it too. Lebanese analysts, in the meantime, are proving to be very poor judges of the Syrian regime.
[ 52 comments ]
Syrian embassy press release on the Iraqi refugees issue
Wednesday, February 14, 2007, 15:44I wouldn’t presume to have an impact on the Syrian government (except for regularly getting a few people upset), but I can safely say, at least, that my indignation at Condi Rice’s “authorization” detailed in the previous post was eventually also felt there, at least in Washington.
The Press Secretary of the Syrian Embassy in Washington, Mr. Salkini, has kindly forwarded me this press release sent to Congress and to media outlets; the underlying message is that engagement with the US would have to be comprehensive, and that the topics of discussion would not be dictated.
I wish the London-based Syrian Media Center, or the British Syrian Society (both of which deal with the media and in which I still count a number of friends) would be as vigilant in responding to official statements or to media misrepresentations (such as The Independent's claim about the "contentious" Golan Heights).
Here is the press release as I received it.
February 14, 2007
Contrary to what the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was told last Thursday, there has been no communication between any U.S. and Syrian officials regarding the Iraqi refugees’ situation in Syria.
It is quite evident that one of the most disastrous byproducts of the U.S. occupation of Iraq is the displacement and exodus of several million Iraqis out of their homes. While the U.S. has taken in just over 450 Iraqi refugees, Syria has welcomed over 1,300,000 Iraqis, which is a tremendous burden on any country.
The time has come for the U.S. to take responsibility for its enterprise in Iraq and share in the humanitarian burden resulting from its failed policies. In the meantime, Syrians will continue to exert all measures in providing shelter for their displaced Iraqi brothers and sisters.
The Embassy of the Syrian Arab Republic, Washington
[ 37 comments ]
Beggars on Iraq, choosers with Syria
Monday, February 12, 2007, 19:42When the invasion of Iraq was being spin doctored in American and British media (remember WMDs?) and some commentators warned of a humanitarian and refugee catastrophe, they were ridiculed by the warmongers already on a high from the adrenalin of the imminent attack, labeling any sane person pointing to the folly of the enterprise “Saddam supporter.” Why were these anti-war kill-joys preventing Iraqis from liberation, wondered the neocon clan (which came to include the British Labour Party, to the frustration of the Tories who were robbed of the extreme right-wing position by Blair and who couldn’t possibly turn the opposite way)? The whole doom domino concept (war-chaos-refugees-etc.) was nonsense, we were told; Iraq would be liberated, WMDs would be found, democracy would be installed, and the only domino theory would be the one spreading happiness and justice for all. That was before the “birth pangs” theory of course.
Fast forward four years; the refugee catastrophe has exploded, and the exodus of some 2 million people (according to the UN) was most certainly not an “unforeseen” by-product of the invasion, as some media agencies with short memories would have us think. After the US and Britain embarked on this illegal, immoral and inhumane war against the country and the people of Iraq, the hope remaining in Pandora’s box has not been sufficient for many Iraqis who have fled in despair to neighboring countries.
There are around 1 million such refugees alone in Syria, facing the inevitable hardship of all refugees and a difficult period of readjustment. Unintentionally, they are simultaneously making life difficult for a good number of Syrians as well, who have suddenly seen property prices sky rocket (for rentals and sales), general inflation increase rapidly, and a new height of overcrowding in the big cities. Jaramana alone, a suburb of Damascus, has practically become an Iraqi quarter where house prices are similar to those in Damascus. According to most accounts, Syrian authorities have behaved in an exemplary manner with the refugees, treating them with compassion and affording them the same social services (including health and education) to which Syrians have access.
By way of example, “moderate” and major US ally Saudi Arabia, in contrast, is building a fence to keep out undesirable Iraqis, and other “moderate” and major US ally Jordan has been treating Iraqi refugees quite badly, denying them healthcare and education, and letting live the exploited life of illegal aliens. With its generosity applauded by the head of UNHCR, Syria finds itself in the other, the “right” extreme here. But after a long period of laissez-faire, continuing to treat all Arab nationals equally, and not as foreigners needing visas, Syrian authorities have begun to apply visa restrictions to try to manage a situation that is spiralling out of control. Authorities have seemingly promised that Iraqis would not be deported or turned back, as they are in Jordan, but clearly the open-arms, no questions asked treatment is going to be regulated.
There is no doubt that the blame for this catastrophe lays squarely at the feet of the US and Britain, which is why it has actually become funny (even for regime critics) to hear officials from these two countries describe Syria as a negative force in the region, given that anything the Syrian regime actually does – or even anything it is allegedly doing – really can’t compare with the unprecedented devastation brought to us courtesy of the Anglo-American enterprise. Really, look who’s talking.
Be that as it may, whether Syria is negative, positive or neutral, the Bush administration nevertheless seems to have no choice but to liaise with this force, apparently, for lo and behold, the American Secretary of State has now declared that she has authorized talks with Syria about the refugee crisis. Authorized. In other words, Syria is allowed to help America solve its mess, and permitted to talk to its chargé d’affaires in Damascus towards that end. What an honor. Let the appreciation ceremony begin.
Washington’s infuriatingly condescending attitude is doing nothing to endear it to Syrians, and should technically endear it equally little to the Syrian regime being approached for help. Unfortunately, the likelihood of the latter hurriedly grabbing the opportunity to make proper contact on an official level is high, regardless of the official rhetoric. However, even while recognizing the reality of a unipolar world where most issues are dictated by the agenda of the superpower (who, in addition, currently happens to be our next-door neighbor), it is intolerable to imagine that Syrian citizens who have been affected directly by the war on Iraq should be grateful to America for granting them the privilege of simply talking – talking to help that same America try to manoeuver out of the refugee problem it has created.
It should be made absolutely clear, officially that is, that Syria is helping Iraqi refugees regardless of - and not because of – America’s "authorization," and that the US had better start taking responsibility for its actions, which are having a huge impact on the life of Syrians (let alone Iraqis). Like it or not, Faruq Shara’a was right when he claimed that the influx of refugees had “imposed heavy economic, social and security burdens on Syria.” The financial costs for the refugee crisis must be borne by the invaders and the occupiers alone, as they have caused this mess in the first place.
Regrettably, even when saying some of the right things, some media (this one being just an example) can’t help but being patronizing about Syria even as they praise its actions with refugees. I don’t know about my fellow Syrians, but frankly, I find this is all getting a bit tiring, this old record of pro-terrorism, radical, negative, etc. Especially when it comes from those who used to sing the praises of the regime (yes, it’s a digression, but I mean the Lebanese political leaders, who treat their own refugees like dirt) while Syrian civil society activists were being harassed. Unlike others, Syrians didn’t wait for involvement or influence from anyone outside Syria to speak whenever they could, at their own risk. So when Syrians (yes, even the regime) do something good, like the regime has actually proved with the Iraqi refugees, to whom it even allowed the luxury of voting freely and choosing from dozens of candidates (I leave you to absord the irony which we’ve already covered in this blog), or when the Syrian people fling open their homes, their wallets and their hearts to the tens of thousands of Lebanese refugees escaping the Israeli war machine, let’s give credit where credit is due without the “but” part. It wouldn't hurt to be treated like the other problem makers in the area - even the "moderate" ones - every now and then.
[ 22 comments ]
The Golan Disinformation Campaign intensifies
Tuesday, February 6, 2007, 13:02Only a few days ago, in the last post (followed by a discussion on the media and Syria), I wrote about the gradual slip of the Golan Heights in the media, from being a Syrian territory invaded and illegally annexed by Israel, to becoming one that was “contentious,” having been “seized” or “captured” during a vague war and kept in a subsequent "Arab invasion." There are no mentions anymore of UNSC Resolutions 242 or 338, or of the Madrid Peace Conference, nor are there categorical declarations of the Golan Heights’ legal status as Syrian land as it morphs into yet another "painful concession" for Israel that is willing to generously "give land" so it can "receive peace."
Israelis and pro-Israelis have already achieved quite a lot with this, creating a very misleading perception in public opinion that will be difficult to reverse. As if that wasn’t quite enough, and it apparently never is with Israel, there is now an outrageous attempt to speak in the name of the people under occupation, and to imply they are not a concern for their compatriots, in turn suggesting that this should be taken into account when deciding on the future of the Golan.
The article’s title sets the tone immediately, but doesn’t even pave the way for the dangerous absurdities that will follow: indeed, declaring “The Golan's Druze wonder what is best” isn’t meant to be an innocent statement about an ambiguous situation, but aims at implying that the Golan’s Syrian inhabitants actually prefer to remain under Israeli rule, within Israeli borders, rather than returning to their mother country!
Seth Wikas, who has a number of other gems about Syria, pretends impartiality by mentioning the Syrian people languishing in Israeli jails for having resisted various Israeli actions, but that’s where the pretense stops; for the duration of this ridiculous article, he deceitfully refers to them not as Syrians, but as Druze. He begins the process by explaining that “The fate of the Golan's Arabs, who are Druze, illustrates the human side of future land-for-peace deals. Arabs, as versus the 20,000 Jewish settlers … and as versus the 2,000 Alawites in Ghajar. So far, the reader is told there are Arabs (who are Druze) and there are Alawites (who aren’t Arabs?) but not a word about Syrians of either religion. It is difficult to know whether this mess of a statement is simply ignorance or deliberate deception; we can only assume it's the latter, as the rest of the article goes downhill from there, with Wikas attempting to convince us that Druze are torn between Israel and Syria.
Here are some choice passages which allude to the dream of life in Israel versus the nightmare of life in Syria.
To begin with, they are richer now than they would be back under Syrian rule, so let’s not make them go back. ”It also highlights the emptiness of Syrian rhetoric about its "occupied Golan brethren," inasmuch as Druze villagers have been given little economic incentive to return to a Syria where they can expect to be poorer.” So we’ve been wrong all these years to insist on, say, the Palestinians’ right of return because they’re much better off elsewhere?
Of course, Israel would love nothing more than having Syria pay the Golan's citizens to leave it, moving to other areas of Syria, just so that Israel can get rid of the inconvenient native inhabitants who weren't already expelled or who hadn't fled under Israel's aggression, leaving more room for settlers.
The writer admits they haven't wanted to become Israeli, but look at how well the Israelis have treated them. ”Irrespective of their legal status, all residents have access to Israeli schools (which teach Torah and Hebrew), pay taxes and enjoy municipal services such as water and electricity.” Aw, isn’t the Israeli occupation nice? Surely we shouldn't expect residents (note the choice of word: residents!) to want to leave it when Israelis allow their victims to “enjoy” water – their own water of course!
We're told in no uncertain terms that it’s the economy, stupid, and therefore a Syrian Golan is not really an option. ”While not as rich as the bon vivants of Tel Aviv, the inhabitants have a standard of living vastly surpassing that of their counterparts on the Syrian side of the border.” Syrians under occupation are doing so well they never want to be anywhere near Syria again, right?
And if you’re not convinced by now, let’s state the obvious facts about why the Golan shouldn’t go back to Syria: the nice people (who apparently aren't even really Syrian) would be miserable there, with all those awful Syrians. ”The locals work hard - whether in agriculture, construction, or services - and have little regard for Syrians who, in many Golanis' minds, "drink tea and sleep all day." In Syria, working hard rarely ever translates into making more money - unless you have government connections.” How can you expect these civilized, hard-working, Israeli-like people to associate with lazy, unfamiliar Syrians who drink tea and sleep all day? Well, my Syrian friends, isn’t that what we all do? Surely this "Syria expert" can’t be uninformed, or a racist, or a bigot!
And anyway, even if the Druze of the Golan really feel a bit Syrian, let’s remember that the Syrian people only use them as rhetoric, so they shouldn’t go back to Syria. ”While most identify themselves as Syrian and take Syria with both its grandeur and its faults, once in Damascus these students can see how the Golan has become a rhetorical tool that has not trickled down into Syrian public consciousness.” Now the writer is not only speaking for the "Druze of the Golan" but also for the actual Syrians of Syria, for whom he claims the Golan is not even in their consciousness, perish the thought. This Syria expert is pretending we haven't heard about the Golan, ad nauseam even, since we were born!
Remember, when all is said and done, these poor Druze are afraid of Syria, so let’s not make them go back, let them stay in good Israel where they can live well. Besides, they’re Druze, not Syrian. ”This and the fact that they can earn more in Israel are why many young Druze, as well as their parents, fear a return to Syria.”
There you go. FEAR A RETURN TO SYRIA. That’s the next wave of propaganda that will begin to spread now: the Druze of the Golan have nothing in common with the evil, lazy, poor Syrians, so the Golan should stay in Israel. Good thing The Daily Star now opens its opinion pages to increasingly "balanced" (not to mention informed) points of view; after waking up from our nap and drinking our tea, how else would we know about the reality of our land, and about what the Druze of the Golan really want?
[ 51 comments ]
Definitions from the Syrian-Israeli conflict lexicon
Saturday, February 3, 2007, 13:25Well that’s interesting. So you have your land occupied, and you fight a war to get it back, and it’s called an "invasion" (a “joint Arab invasion” to be precise). That’s the 1973 October War for you, an invasion.
In contrast, the initial invasion of Arab lands by Israel is called “capture.” You see, the plateau was ”captured from Syria by Israel in 1967 during the Six Day War,” which from this description sounds like it just was an inevitable, unfortunate turn of events, rather than a unilateral, simultaneous Israeli attack on several Arab countries. They might as well have written that “The Golan Heights were just running around in the wild and Israel decided to capture them for safekeeping.” Other equally imprecise reports describe the Golan as having been “seized from Syria in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.”
It gets worse: the Golan Heights plateau, apparently, is “one of the most contentious strips of land on the planet.” Really? Why is that? What exactly is controversial or debatable about which country has the rightful ownership of the Golan Heights? Are there no history books around? Are there no UN resolutions mentioning it?
And that’s The Independent! Imagine the other media.
It seems to me that the PPP (Peace Park Plan), also known as the secret Syrian-Israeli track 2 talks, which Syrian officials are still refusing to publicly acknowledge, is being dragged on and on not only because it is big news, but also so that the media has something different to write about. Apparently, nothing interesting is happening in Palestine or Iraq, same old same old. Seriously though, and, more importantly, by describing the Golan long enough as “contentious” or “captured” (the latter being technically correct, but misleading), or other similarly vague terms, public opinion will increasingly regard it as a “painful concession” which peace-loving Israel is generously, needlessly giving UP, not BACK, just so that it can finally have peace, while the warring, violent Syrians get what is not rightfully theirs just so that the region can breathe.
This might seem exaggerated to someone unfamiliar with the intricacies of long-term public relations and propaganda campaigns, but I say this as a marketing and media professional. For examples of how this works, remember the Wexner Analysis.
My father was always opposed to the equation of "land for peace" and spoke about it repeatedly. He was so right. It implies Israel is asked to give up - not back - land to receive peace, and it implies Arabs are getting something for nothing. This is dangerous and unfair.
For the past few years, in conferences, seminars or different meetings, I’ve spoken about the need for Palestinians and concerned Arabs to start preparing a professional, targetted campaign for June 5, 2007 – also known as the sad 40th anniversary of the Israeli invasion of the West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza, Sinai, and of course, the Golan Heights. Have you seen anything around? I haven’t. All that is left to see are "facts on the ground."
[ 39 comments ]
Little, late, but better than nothing
Thursday, February 1, 2007, 12:25According to The Economist, I’m rich, and so are most Syrians, hurray; it claims the Central Bank of Syria's managed float started at a dollar rate of US$51.8:S£1. Count your Syrian pounds, folks, and see how many dollars that makes.
On a more serious note (but honestly, what are the editors doing?), I agree with the general tone of the article; Syria is slowly opening up, but not fast enough, and not comprehensively enough. I leave you to read the article, which is basically a summary of recent developments that all Syria followers will have already seen. I still remain sceptical, as always, about the efficiency of new laws; with the archaic procedures of the Syrian legal system, it remains to be seen exactly how new laws are to cancel out earlier laws. Remember Decree 408 and Article 8 of the Syrian constitution? I still haven't read the details of the new decree, but I can already foresee application problems with the differences between Law N. 10 and the new Decree 8, sending investors into a black hole of bureaucracy hell.
The regime has made it clear there would be no political reform, but it’s time the economic reforms it promised and pledged repeatedly started coming. It’s not yet too little too late, but it is little and it is late. We need more.
[ 38 comments ]
Going under in Syria
Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 12:09After the intensity of discussing the notorious PPP (the Peace Park Plan) in my last post, with a slight detour to cover some of our national culinary delicacies in the comments section (falafel, mostly, if you missed it), I was surprised to find myself enjoying this piece by Guy Taylor covering Syrians’ search for freedom online in the aftermath of the Damascus Spring. It’s chatty and - unlike many articles on Syria - it is also mostly correct; but there are a few slips in Taylor’s piece, notions that have been repeated often in the past few years, and with which I’ve disagreed equally often.
For instance, Taylor repeats the tale that the Damascus Spring started with the death of Hafez Assad; that is not true. Not to be finicky, but it’s a very important point; the relative relaxation of the regime, the so-called Damascus Spring, began earlier, while he was still alive in the late 90s, comfortable in the knowledge that nothing could shake his regime anymore – comfortable enough to allow for more criticism of the government (remember, there’s a difference between the state and the regime). While things certainly continued to flourish after his death, in the period dubbed the Damascus Spring, it was actually only because civil society activists were openly encouraged to speak … only so they could fall harder, as we all witnessed. In my opinion, this distinction is essential in understanding the current regime’s actions and attitude.
Taylor’s claim that the new freedoms were crushed when it became clear the US would be invading Iraq is obviously wrong. The first wave of arrests of our brave civil society activists, including the removal of parliamentary immunity and arrest of Riad Seif and Mamoun Homsi, started over the summer of 2001, with Dr. Aref Dalila being arrested in August 2001, before 9/11, and way before the "war on terror" and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq became a sorry part of our reality.
I smiled at Taylor’s analysis as to why a night club would play a pop song that was “pro-Syria, pro-Assad” (aren't the two terms redundant in this context, given there couldn't possibly be a variation with "anti" no matter where you put it?) at 3 AM; one of the possibilities, in his opinion, was that “the song may also have been a way for the nightclub’s owner to stay open late while avoiding trouble with the authorities.” Very cute, and in line with the school of thought followed by every little shop prominently displaying the inevitable official and unofficial photos.
The description of his first meeting with the founder of Champress was also funny: ”I was taken aback when he suddenly swerved up to the curb in a black Mercedes 600 with tinted windows, the sort of car that seemed more likely to be driven by a secret security agent than by a man who spends his time breaking down barriers to free speech.” Well, most secret security agents actually drive other types of cars (remember the countless white Peugeots?) but Taylor clearly wasn't buying the idea that Syrians could make it big in the media sector - at least not exclusively. (Not just in Syria, by the way: few journalists could afford similar cars.)
His revelation of Mohsen Bilal’s daily phone calls to Champress reminded me of Ali Ferzat and his ill-fated Ad-Domari, when he was hounded by the-then Minister of “Information” Adnan Omran. On the subject of freedom, I maintain that the best material written so far on the Damascus Spring is "Syria: Neither Bread nor Freedom” by Alan George. When I passed it on to my husband after I finished it, I remember he would interrupt his reading every few pages, rather worryingly asking me: “Are you sure you didn’t write this yourself? Does Alan George really exist?” But I digress (what a surprise).
So, when you’re done reading about online media in Syria, make sure you get the latest on key indicators of Syrian character and socio-political attitudes: the manufacture of lingerie! Really, journalists must be running out of subject ideas (go figure) because this is all the rage. Yossi Sarid explains in Haaretz that “The future is in underwear,” basing his entire article on another article in Time Magazine by a Lydia Wilson called “Undercover in Damascus.”
But besides being apparently out of ideas, Haaretz is way too late and Time is not quite timely, the former in particular speaking volumes about the supposed expertise of Israelis on Syria. That’s because the subject, about which a book has now been written, believe it or not (“The Secret Life of Syrian Lingerie”) was already covered last year in a rather weird article by the author of that same book, who at the time was still researching, in a British weekly called The New Statesman.
Being a more attentive follower of Syrian society, if not lingerie, than Haaretz and Time, I had already covered that coverage in my blog at the time, reporting amongst other things the basic, essential “fact” that Gulf money made Syrian bras possible in 1973. Intrigued? Then do please read it to understand the significance of Syrian underwear, and its impact on politics - or was it the other way around? I know there’s so much to say about home, but I really didn't expect we would be discussing underwear twice in this blog!
[ 16 comments ]
A white paper for a picnic in the park
Monday, January 22, 2007, 23:58”Israel has said that the Arabs have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And it seems this time that it is Israel which is missing the opportunity. Here you have all Arab parties involved in the Israeli conflict negotiating for seven rounds, for hundreds of hours, during the mandate of two Israeli governments, and yet not being able to agree on any of the core issues, or the essential issues necessary to establish peace, a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace between them.”
Ambassador Mowaffak Allaf, Chief Syrian Negotiator,
National Press Club, Washington DC, October 29, 1992
At the State Department, 1992, AFP
My father said these words during a press conference 14 years ago, on the first anniversary of the Madrid Peace Conference. He felt that Arabs had already given enough (more than enough) commitment to warrant better responses from Israel (even the so-called Rabin Deposit, never honored, was a mere statement of the obvious in a process based on the equation of land for peace), and he never really believed Israel was interested in peace.
I can only imagine how my father would react to the news, over the past few years and more recently this month, of repeated Syrian offers for unconditional resumptions of negotiations – unconditional to the extent of scratching all these hard years of negotiating and starting again from square one, thus renouncing previous agreements. And I’m sure he would not be the only one horrified by the extents to which Syria seems to be bowing to Israel (even as the latter wages war) as it continues to practically beg for them to pay attention to its overtures. Be it a secret track two attempt, a repeated open call for talking without restrictions, or a rash handshake, such actions do nothing to keep Syria in a strong – and legally rightful – position.
There was nothing “informal,” as wrongly explained by a number of analysts, about Syria’s participation in the Madrid +15 Conference which took place a fortnight ago. Do not be fooled by the relatively low level of representation allowed there, in the persons of Riad Daoudi and Bushra Kanafani – both of whom pretended to be there in a personal capacity, with the approval of the authorities. In fact, the Syrians were most eager not only to attend this conference, but also to make sure they could influence the agenda and even choose some participants – at least in the Syrian and Lebanese camps. Although the initial invitation to the conference came from an NGO, the Toledo International Center for Peace, which had wanted to keep it out of governmental channels, staying amongst academic circles to keep the discussion open, the Spanish Foreign Minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, took over contacts with Syria and was only too happy to get a more official participation – one which dictated who was acceptable to the Syrians, and who wouldn’t, say, bring up things that were inconvenient (like, for instance, the fact that there is no need to negotiate unconditionally).
This is why my name (along with that of another Syrian, a friend to whom I leave the freedom to declare himself should he wish to do so) * Update: see Addendum below was stricken off the invitation list as one of the requests made by the Syrian government. A few journalists had already seen my name on the participants’ list and asked me to talk to them about Madrid +15 before it convened, but I stalled, knowing what was happening behind the scenes and not wanting to reveal much before the actual event took place.
That the Syrian regime is not a great fan of mine is not much of a revelation – our feelings seem to be mutual on at least one issue. But it amuses me to know (and this is not the first time it happens) that they feel threatened by my presence, even as an observer or a normal participant, worried I might actually say something that makes sense to others, with all my intransigence on the status of negotiations that doesn’t agree with their particular agenda. (Someone very close to me told me I should take this as a compliment, because people like me make people like them look bad. I choose to believe him.)
In any case, given that the current regime seems willing to start from scratch again just for the sake of talking, it seems I am way too much of a hardliner as far as they are concerned, with regards to the Golan and to Syria’s negotiating stances. So was my father, of course, with an “intransigence” described by the despicable Yossi Ben Aharon. Ben Aharon’s ugly antics are well known to diplomats and journalists, and Sami Moubayed remembers one of the many incidents my father had to endure with this Likudnik (see the last paragraph, which explains the title of Sami’s article, “Too busy dancing”). While my father always believed there was little difference in substance between Likud and Labor, I am sure he was happy to see the back of such a nasty character when Shamir’s ousting as prime minister brought Itmar Rabinovitch to the head of the Israeli delegation’s as Rabin’s man.
It’s normal to assume that my father’s position simply followed the orders at the time, but that is only partially correct. In fact, my father accepted to head the negotiations with Israel only reluctantly, to put it mildly, and only after having asked Hafez Assad, face to face, to give him his word that the June 4 1967 border was the minimum acceptable, and that no secret track two talks would be allowed – to which Assad replied: you know, if you hadn’t said this, I might have doubted you were really Mowaffak Allaf! This is a story that has been recounted to my brothers and I over the years by various Arab diplomats, for whom it confirmed that my father’s ultimate concern was always defending his cause, and for whom daring to face Hafez Assad with a provocative and loaded question few others would have the courage to pose as a condition was not a problem. Assad had chosen my father personally to head the talks, and word was that a number of regime cronies who wanted to push their own people were upset that Assad couldn’t find a single person inside the regime to become this “responsible,” or inside the Baath, or even inside Syria (we were living in Vienna at the time)!
This long digression went through my mind as I read last week about the secret talks between Syria and Israel that have been making headlines. One might think my reactionary position is inherited, but with a hundred reasons to denounce the attitude of the Syrian government, I hope it is a natural reaction which is typical of my compatriots.
We’ve already seen it repeatedly: the more Arabs (Syrians and Palestinians included) concede needlessly on major issues, the more Israel finds itself in a strong position, whining that it is making “painful concessions” and trying to dictate the parameters of a strange kind of peace. Like the “peace” peddled in this strange, dangerous non-paper (which reeks of really being a white paper to me) divulged by Akiva Eldar last week in Haaretz.
A non-paper “based” on the June 4, 1967 border, but a border which remains to be agreed. In other words, it completely ignores the pledge of Ehud Barak, who numerous observers (including “honest broker” Americans) agreed got cold feet at the eleventh hour and went back on the agreement which would have brought real peace between Syria and Israel, fairly and squarely.
A non-paper giving Israel unprecedented, unwarranted water rights. Syria’s rights, in contrast, are limited to residential and fishing rights.
A non-paper which doesn’t even mention Israeli settlements (as it speaks of “areas that Israeli forces will vacate”), but implies that Syrians will not have the right of return to their own land (a specialty of Israeli policy) so that the area can remain “free of permanent residents” (so much for residential Syrian water rights). No right of return, and no right of compensation, although both are guaranteed by international law.
A non-paper that would see Syria dropping its support of Palestinian groups in a second, in blatant contravention to every pledge ever made by successive Syrian governments, let alone by Syrian Baathists. The Palestinian cause becomes a tangent, an afterthought, as if we hadn’t spent the last 60 years living through its impact, all of us.
A non-paper demanding cooperation on “local and international terrorism” without defining it, implying both countries have equal understanding of the term.
A non-paper demanding, for once, Syria’s interference in Palestinian, Lebanese and even Iraqi affairs ... but according to Israeli and American interests.
A non-paper giving Israel the luxury of “withdrawal” over 15 years (and certainly not less than 5) while the demilitarized area (on the Syrian side mostly) becomes controlled by American checkpoints – and possibly the unmentioned armed Israeli settlers.
A non-paper, finally, pretending to seriously present the idea of a park on the Golan Heights, allowing Israelis free access without a visa. A park, for picnics with Israeli neighbors we happen to meet. The person who takes credit for this ridiculous notion of a park, an insult to our collective intelligence, should really stay out of politics – especially if he thinks Dennis Ross deserves the Nobel Prize (although given some of the recipients, the Nobel for Peace has certainly gone downhill).
After 40 years of hardship, of young Syrian men spending up to 3 useless years in the army, of army officers’ children driving around recklessly in their big Mercs, and of the regime justifying every excess on the state of war, we get a peace park. It’s a wonder this non-paper didn’t propose, as a “confidence-building step,” a Syrian commitment to acknowledge our beloved falafel as the national dish of Israel, and to throw in our hummus too for good measure (an “Israelization phenomenon” which I once complained about as it smacked of “having your hummus and eating it too”). But not to worry. So far, the Israelis are officially being all high and mighty, pretending they are worried about real Syrian intentions, and insisting they can’t talk for now. So if the Israeli government is refusing even this pittance of a deal publicly, after so much bowing from the Syrian regime, imagine what an actual “peace” treaty would actually look like. Unlike the Syrians, the Israelis have held on to every point yielded by the opposite party as if it was manna from heaven. It is not the Israelis who will ever say they will negotiate without preconditions (on the contrary, of course). Some “humat addiyari” our current negotiators are!
In desperate situations, capitulation is understandable (this agreement being a glorified version thereof) if it is to save lives and eradicate war and all the related suffering. Nobody wants to play hero over the misery of their people. But in that case, it should be called capitulation, and not peddled as a peace deal to be applauded. I am certainly not a fan of “creative solutions” to clear problems, whether in the case of Syria or of Palestine. As far as I’m concerned, and until I see some humane, decent, or even simply lawful action from Israel, I think it’s time to call for a new version of the 3 Nos:
- No to unconditional re-negotiations
- No to undignified track two supplications
- No to unnecessary capitulations
For all its solemnity, this post is light-heartedly dedicated to my Syrian cyberfriends, who will rue the day they ever nagged me to write and ended up with 2000 words!
Addendum: I wrote above that “another Syrian, a friend to whom I leave the freedom to declare himself should he wish to do so” was also taken off the invitation list to Madrid +15. He has gracefully revealed his identity himself in the comments section, and you can read for yourself what he has to say. It is Dr. Murhaf Jouejati, our well-known Syrian scholar and Director of the Middle East Studies Program at The George Washington University, whose career is summarized here. On a personal note, I would like to add that Murhaf is also the son of one of our most eminent and respected diplomats, my father’s friend and colleague who was equally involved in the peace talks - the late, regretted Ambassador Rafik Jouejati.
[ 110 comments ]
Sunday, December 31, 2006, 23:35
Despite everything, these couple of weeks are also the time to celebrate a variety of holidays (still running into January for our Orthodox friends). May they bring us all some peace of mind, if not peace.
[ 17 comments ]
The significance of Saddam's execution on Eid Al Adha
Saturday, December 30, 2006, 01:20While Palestine is slipping from many people's immediate concerns, given the sad repetitiveness of the news (except when it is to gleefully announce the advent of civil war), and while Iraq descends further into hell, with enough tragic events to warrant continuous news broadcasts for days on end (something you wouldn't know from following Anglo-Saxon media, although American and British media should be duty-bound to report on the catastrophic consequences of the crimes against humanity committed by their elected governments – whose justifications they have so often parrotted idiotically), most media have decided that Somalia is actually the most breaking of all breaking news. Of course, it has the easiest, most convenient attention-grabbing headlines; after all, you can't go wrong with screaming titles like "Islamic Courts ..."
I have much to say about events in Palestine in particular, and the situation in the region as a whole, having recently attended a couple of conferences on the subject in the past fortnight. As they were held under Chatham House Rule, it means I can't tell you the details of where I was or who was there, but I can certainly report that I'm feeling even more disheartened than usual about the prospects for our region. The positions that were expressed by American, British and European officials were, to put it mildly, appalling. More than usual. More than you can imagine. More than is reported in the media. More than you would think possible, or smart. Totally lacking in long-term strategic vision, or intelligence.
Which brings me to the urging subject of Saddam Hussein's imminent execution, which kept me unexpectedly busy today as journalists called to inform me about its reported timing, and to ask about its possible effect. Some seemed to think that it might help control the violence in Iraq; this might have been funny, but nothing about Iraq is funny. I wonder where they get ideas like that, and who is trying to market them as "solutions." If Saddam is to be punished (or in this case executed), it should be because a lawful court found him guilty of crimes - and not because someone in Washington or London thinks it might help the situation!
I am against the death penalty, although I admit am often tempted to make exceptions to my own principles. But I do not dispute – quite on the contrary, in fact – the need to have criminals like Saddam Hussein pay for their blatant abuses of power and their crimes against their people. I hope other "leaders" in similar positions, and other people in the cliques surrounding these leaders, will meet a similar humiliating, if not fatal, fate (preferably à la Romania, by the people, and not à la Iraq, by the invaders), and not just in the Middle East, but let us not digress.
The occupation of Iraq by the US and Britain renders the whole trial of Saddam Hussein illegal and worthless (in addition to having been a farcical pretense at justice). Paul Bremer's damned pen, busily signing illegal, immoral decrees up until the last hours of his miserable reign (during which he disbanded the Iraqi army and fired all the Baathists, amongst other brilliant strategies) was only a precursor to the ridiculous American-imposed process of writing a new constitution for Iraq, a document as worthless as the paper on which it was written. Worthless, and extremely dangerous.
These points are not new, and they've been discussed before in this blog. What is new is the crazy – or is it crazy? – notion of executing Saddam Hussein, who is technically a prisoner of war and whose case technically falls under the Geneva Conventions, sometime around dawn on Saturday December 30, in a few hours from now. This will be the dawn of Eid Al Adha, the most important Muslim holiday of the year, following the pilgrimage to Mecca.
Since the Anglo-American invasion, we've had "experts" and media repeat ad nauseam the idea that Saddam's regime was a Sunni regime persecuting the Shia population. Now, with a Shia government ruling under the umbrella of Anglo-American supremacy (in a political sense only of course, since they only really rule the Green Zone), this Sunni leader is going to be executed by a Shia-led government (under a Kurdish president, one might add) on the most important Muslim day, on the same day Muslims believe that God Himself stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son.
Can you only imagine all the potential symbolism that can come out of this execution on that particular date? Can the decision-makers really be that stupid? Can they really not even think that there is room for turning Saddam into a national AND a religious martyr, for turning the issue into a national one first, and a sectarian one second? Or, even worse, vice versa? Is it possible that nobody is thinking of the possibilities?
Or are we the naïve ones, wondering about their lack of foresight when they have possibly already considered all the possibilities and are purposely planning to cause even greater chaos and violence? This execution plan calls for people who are either mighty brave, or mighty stupid. Given recent Anglo-American behavior, it's more likely the latter, and the consequences are going to be devastating. If Saddam is to be executed, he should not go to the hangman alone; his foreign executioners are guilty of even bigger crimes.
I will shed no tears over Saddam Hussein, but I will probably be crying more in despair over Iraq in the near future.
[ 10 comments ]
If the Virgin Mary came today ...
Monday, December 25, 2006, 02:37As millions of people around the world gather to celebrate the wonder of Mary giving birth to baby Jesus, an event revered by Christians and Muslims alike, please think of pregnant Palestinian women who are suffering needlessly and whose babies are dying simply because of Israeli cruelty.
As reported in The Independent, Palestinian women "have been giving birth in startlingly similar conditions to those suffered by Mary 2,000 years ago. They have delivered their babies with no doctors, no sterilised equipment, no back-up if there are complications." In fact, they have been boycotted back into the Stone Age, explains the shocking article.
This is all because Israel, the country on whose behalf the "international community" is starving the Palestinian people and making them live in archaic conditions, refuses to recognize the Palestinians' right to exist.
Once more, therefore, Palestinians will not be having a Merry Christmas, or a Happy Eid for that matter. No wonder their cards aren't so jolly!
[ 1 comment ]
Murder victim and media victim
Monday, December 4, 2006, 21:02Al Jazeera English, in its 17:00 GMT news today, has just described the first victim of violence during the Beirut sit-in as "a pro-Syrian Muslim." I'm sure his family will be honored, in its grief, to know that his whole life has been reduced to this characteristic, his entire being summarized as "pro-Syrian."
This tragic killing has generally been relegated to the "in other news" sections of newspapers and websites, failing to make "breaking news" status even on television news, in most cases. At first, one might be tempted to admire the "self-restraint" of this responsible media, not wanting to pour gasoline on the spreading fire, but we all know better. Can you imagine the screaming headlines, the front page photos, and the urgent alerts if Ahmad Ali Mahmoud had been a Hariri/March 14/anti-Syrian supporter? Can you imagine the indignation, the threats and the denunciations had he been under the wing of the "government elected by the people of Lebanon" which the British Foreign Secretary is so keen to protect (in sharp contrast to the government elected by the people of Palestine, which doesn't happen to meet with her cabinet's approval)?
But since the young victim is none of the above, mentioned in most reports as a mere "Shia," and a "pro-Syrian" one at that, (the opposite of the victim media loves), the news is not deemed important enough. No investigation will be called into his killing by irate and "civilized" officials. No condemnation will be issued by the "international community." No tears will be shed by Fouad Siniora.
The latter's supporters, like most of the mainstream media which has been reporting on these events with even more superficiality and bias than usual, are busy spreading the notion that Hizbullah is basically causing civil war. I never fail to be amazed by the supposed powers of this party, which is apparently capable of putting fire – on its own – to the whole of Lebanon. Pity the nation indeed, which always falls victim to one malevolent group after another, while the ex-warlords are innocently dragged into the violence kicking and screaming. It's always someone else who is trying to hurt Lebanon (the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Iranians … and a couple of March 14 people have even deigned to mention the Israelis), but somehow it is never the Lebanese themselves – or at least never those allied with the powers that be. (Only the LA Times, from what I've seen, has noticed the Israeli soldiers who remained on Lebanese soil until now - but it's basically only to praise them for being so "diplomatic.")
Al Jazeera English, which I've been forcing myself to watch in order to prepare a fair appraisal, did not fail to add its voice to those warning of sectarian violence, as if there was no other reason for the crisis. Now that everyone has become an expert on "Sunnis versus Shias," there suddenly seems to be no other way to explain why things are going wrong in the region. First it was all about the Hariri tribunal, and now it's all about sectarian violence, you see. Yesterday, on Al Jazeera English, Clayton Swisher (who I see for the first time, and who was described as the channel's Middle East analyst) explained the situation in Lebanon as such: there is a "spillover effect from Iraq" ("a series of dominoes," added the presenter helpfully) which can be dangerous, especially if with 100,000 people in downtown Beirut (yes, he said 100,000) someone comes with an explosives belt and blows himself up. This was Al Jazeera English's contribution to our understanding of the Lebanon crisis: on top of being because of the pro-Syrians, it's also because of Iraq and possible suicide bombers! (Well, at least he's not limiting himself to the usual and only "it's the Syrians" line.)
I mention the number he used to point to the clear deficiencies in reporting. I myself am getting tired of this game of "my demonstration is bigger than your demonstration" and I think I've seen enough flags for a long time - especially when they're all the same! However, it looks like we're going to be watching this confrontation for the foreseeable future, and while both sides have genuine grievances, it appears that some, frankly, are more existential than others.
Update: Some media reports are still, reliably, assuring us that it's all Syria's fault, even when "pro-Syrians" are being killed. You see, "Al-Mustaqbal television, which is owned by the Future Movement of anti-Syrian parliament majority leader Saad Hariri, said the army detained three Syrians who had allegedly provoked the incident by throwing stones from an overhead bridge at the passing Hizbullah cars." That explains it then. Thank you Annahar.
[ 13 comments ]
Will we (the people) become like them (the revolution)?
Friday, December 1, 2006, 02:20I've tried to ignore the Lebanese political scene this past week or so (it was getting a bit repetitive), but it's impossible to ignore Fouad Siniora's announcement that tomorrow's demonstration in Beirut by the Lebanese opposition amounts to a coup. Siniora did not feel that the previous mass demonstrations by the previous opposition (to which he belonged) had been a coup; in fact, the so-called March 14 movement calls it a revolution. I wonder what makes it different from the March 8 movement. And let me state loud and clear that I am not taking side with either movement (and that includes, obviously, the "corrective" one); if I did, it would be neither with the side Israel prefers, nor with the side that brings theology into political life. I guess I need more choices.
I am also tired of this obsession with the Hariri tribunal, as if it were the only issue of importance today; call me naïve, but I believe there are other reasons as well for the political impasse in Lebanon today, and it's certainly not all about Hariri, regardless of how much March 14 try to hammer it in. Granted, these assassinations should all be investigated, but what about all the other events in the country? Like it or not, Hizbullah does have some other issues, to put it mildly, following last July's "events" (to put it even more mildly).
In any case, after observing the Lebanese political scene, in particular over the last 18 months or so, I think the March 14 movement has the dubious honor of having caused the loss of all the sympathy it had first gained after the assassination of Rafik Hariri. In my opinion, this is mainly because of the way it failed to differentiate between Syrian regime and Syrian people (becoming outright racist at times), and because of its silence during the barbaric Israeli aggression of Lebanon (its official silence that is, as it appears there was lot of wishful thinking for Hizbullah's defeat).
This loss of regional sympathy on the popular level is pretty much what the Bush administration achieved with its actions after 9/11. True, it's on a much smaller scale in Lebanon's case, but that's still quite an accomplishment.
This led me to have some worrying thoughts about the possible behavior of Syrians in similar situations. What if when we Syrians finally get "democracy" we end up bickering like idiots and not solving anything, letting the country run to waste? What if we let form take precedence over content? What if we get so stupid that we start blaming every single thing going wrong in the country on those who ruled it shortly before we took over? What if the remaining warlords (slash businessmen slash politicians slash parliamentarians) start getting rid of one another ("fakhar" like, as we say in Arabic), taking advantage of the fact that everyone will automatically blame the previous rulers for these crimes, whether or not they did it?
What if we go into mass hysteria when one of our leaders is killed, forgetting all our past criticism of him, living in denial about the state of our economy and foreign debt, and only remembering his multi-billionaire's vision of our capital's downtown? What if we lose sight of the values we fought for all these years when the unjust rulers ruled? What if our intellectuals, writers and activists all suddenly decide to ignore those who for years defended their cause and wrote about it at great risk to their personal freedom? What if we ignore a joint declaration they have taken great risks to publish in support of our cause, and look the other way when they are punished for it?
What if we begin to mix between people and rulers, and what if we start taking it out on poor workers, beating them, killing them, burning their tents? What if we start speaking of the rulers' compatriots, or co-religionists, as if they were to blame for our years of hardship? What if we start treating them all in one way (a bad way), forgetting that they suffered as much as we did from these rulers, even if they came from the same background?
What if we start doing what they are doing? I've always thought Syrians had learned from their neighbors (in Lebanon and now in Iraq) never to fall into the temptation to take revenge or to fight on sectarian or other God-forsaken terms. I'm not so sure, however, that the temptation to bicker stupidly and endlessly has gone; in fact, if there's anything our sycophants know how to do, it's waxing poetic about leaders and repeating useless slogans ad nauseam while the important issues are ignored. Imagine if they start using these "skills" to reinvent today's "responsibles" as tomorrow's visionaries, and if they start to fight one another and paralyze the nation ... now that really would be the end of us yet.
[ 9 comments ]
Welcome to Britain ... apparently
Thursday, November 30, 2006, 15:43Time for a massive digression from the usual topics in this blog. There are certain aspects of living in Britain that have become simply insufferable, especially when coming back from the warmth and friendliness of people in my country of birth. That's when the culture shock hits you, even when you've lived abroad forever, even when you're used to such attitudes.
To begin with, the fiasco imposed by the British government on travellers after the supposed terrorist threat last summer was the biggest waste of time. Our small piece of cabin luggage, bought especially because of the restrictions and because its measurements, on paper, obeyed requirements, was refused because the wheels would not fit in the test frame; how was that a threat to the security of everyone? How was forcing us to remove two laptops from it, carrying them by hand (in addition to the baby's car seat, the baby's pram … and of course the baby!), supposed to make us feel safer? How was safety improved by letting two women (my Mom and I) and a baby run to the gate after the delay caused by the "threatening" wheels of our tiny new luggage? Of course there must have been thousands of stories like this one, so I hope everyone felt a lot safer knowing women's makeup was safely out of reach from the cabin.
This made seeing the mukhabarat at Damascus airport a joke; in fact, they even seemed pleasantly welcoming, but I may be exaggerating slightly here. (OK, I'm definitely exaggerating, but you get my drift.)
Flying back to Heathrow was just as disagreeable. At Damascus airport already, for the first time in the life of this frequent traveller, I was asked to make two photocopies of my passport and of my daughter's, both European, because the British government had demanded that all "foreign citizens of Arab origin" be thus treated and our details filed and passed on to them. People at the check-in counter were clearly shocked, but I think I was the only one who made a comment out loud. I'll leave you to guess, as it's pretty untranslatable anyway.
When we got to London, 6 policemen waited at the end of the finger, checking our passports (and actually making a point of comparing my baby with the photo on her passport!) before allowing us the honor of treading on Heathrow's ground, as we made our way to the official passport control and customs. We don't get this personalized welcome coming from other countries, although I'm sure this special treatment applies to countries other than Syria as well.
To top it off, in spite of my frustrating experience with the fallacy of British helpfulness, I had made the mistake of assuming someone at Heathrow would actually help a woman with a baby (and pram and car seat) and the luggage cart. Of course, it was a Syrian man who first helped me with my suitcases, without my asking. But as I took time to settle the baby and the other small bags, and after having been informed that nobody from the airport would be helping me, I found myself pushing both along to get through customs and to my waiting husband outside. The British customs officers stood there, arms folded, observing me as I struggled to push one item after another, holding on tightly to my baby. You guessed it: it was two foreign gentlemen, an American and a German, who swept to my rescue, each taking an item (on top of their own luggage) and insisting I just follow them.
I've been to many places around the world, but I have never ever experienced the rudeness – or, even worse, the indifference – I see in London. As I don't drive in London, and having gotten to use the public transport system frequently, I was shocked to realize that even a heavily pregnant woman got no help. Men would turn their faces when they would see me get on a bus, worried they would look guilty sitting down. Standing in line to get on buses, I even got pushed a couple of times, and several men and women overtook me several times to rush to the remaining free seats before I even dreamt of sitting down myself. In fact, I will always remember the ONE time a man offered me his seat – and that's because he was French! As for women, 3 of them offered their seats during the entire length of my pregnancy. And here I am honestly not exaggerating. Welcome to Britain.
[ 13 comments ]