On Assad's Visit to Spain: Peeing in the Wind - عن زيارة الأسد إلى إسبانيا: التبول في وجه الريح

Global media fail to accurately report on Bashar al-Assad's anti-peace statements that he made in Madrid, where he said: 

1)    "ٍٍٍٍٍٍٍٍٍSigning peace agreement does not mean actual peace, but more like a permanent ceasefire."

2)    “Should there be peace with Israel, an Israeli Embassy will open in Damascus, but it will be besieged and no one will dare enter.”

3)    “Should there be peace with Israel, no tourists will come nor businessmen.”

4)    "There will be no popular sympathy for any peace achieved with Israel."

Reading through Assad's statements we can only conclude that a peace deal with Israel will not alter the status quo, so why should Israel return the Golan Heights?

Conclusion: BasharAl-Assad of Syria is either the most stupid peace negotiator in history, or aman who is not interested in peace in any way, or both.

So, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, are you happy with the fruits of your engagement?

 

"استبعد الرئيس السوري إمكانية التوصل إلى سلام مع إسرائيل قريبا وأكد أن السلام يعني علاقات طبيعية بين الطرفين وأن توقيع اتفاقية السلام لا يعني تحقيقه، وإنما هو أشبه بوقف إطلاق نار دائم. ونقلت وسائل الإعلام الرسمية وشبه الرسمية عن الرئيس السوري خلال اليوم الأخير في ختام جولته اللاتينية التي شملت زيارة فنزويلا وكوبا والبرازيل والأرجنتين قوله: إن التعاطف الشعبي سيكون معدوما (إذا ما تحقق السلام مع إسرائيل) وسيكون هناك سفارة (إسرائيلية في دمشق) مطوقة لا أحد يجرؤ على دخولها ولا سياح سيأتون ولا تجار."

النتيجة إذاً أن التوصل إلى اتفاقية سلام مع إسرائيل لن يؤدي إلى أي تغيير في الوضع الحالي من وجهة نظرها، إذاً، لماذا ستعيد إسرائيل الجولان؟ خوفاً من الجيش السوري؟ إكراماً لخاطرالأسد؟

الخلاصة: إما أن بشار الأسد هو أغبى مفاوض في التاريخ، أو أنه لايريد السلام، أو الإثنان معاً – وهو المرجح. فهنيئاً لأمة أنجبت بشار الأسد، ورأسته عليها ورقصت فرحة به! وهنيئاً لأوباما وكلينتون على النتائج الإيجابية لانفتاحهما على وحوارهما مع الأسد...

Announcement!

Well, it finally had to happen, I guess. I have just moved my blog to the Tharwa Community. It can be accessed using the following link:

http://www.tharwacommunity.org/amarji/

I think the move makes some sense in light of the fact that Tharwa is indeed my own project, which I have been slaving over for a few years now. The new site uses Typepad which is a far more developed blogging tool than Blogger. The migration of the content from Blogger to Typepad was somewhat smooth, but there a few glitches that I need to work on iun due course of time. But, anybody with an email can still comment on the blog, so the move will not affect the ease with which we interact.

See you on the new site.

The Dying of Old Damascus!

Despite ample protests by civil society advocates, current residents and international NGOs, the Syrian authorities are said to move forward with plans to destroy the last pieces of Old Damascus that remain just outside the Old City Walls, especially the area known as Souq al-Manakhliyyah. Should this indeed take place, thousands of Damascene families will be thrown out of their dwellings with little or no compensation, and a piece of history will perish forever. Unless we can bring prompt international attention to this matter, soon there will be nothing to protest, as we will all be faced with a fait accomplit.

This is not the first time that such a measure has been adopted by the Syrian authorities. Indeed, in the early 90s, the Syrian authorities destroyed much of the old dwellings encroaching upon the old dwellings encroaching on the walls of the Umayyad mosque, including the cloister of the famous medieval philosopher Abu Hamid al-Ghazali. Protests came too late at that time as well.

If this trend should continue, soon there won’t be anything truly Damascene about Damascus. The old forest al-Ghouta has been all but completely wiped off, the River Barada, has all but completely dried up, Qasayoun, the simple of its resisting spirit, has long been tamed by squatter settlements, unruly development, and, of course, palaces. And death haunts the Old City itself. Old Damascus, it seems, is following, or, to be more exact, is made to follow, in the footsteps of Old Hama, albeit armed with nothing but whimpers.

It may not be too late, however, to prevent the crowning of this macabre achievement, if we made our protests loud enough and avoided, for the sake of Damascus at least, the overpoliticization of the issue - a pretty strange demand, I admit, coming from me.


This report is based on contact with an old friend who is in a position to know.

Towards a democratic Syria!

In 1998, only 219 Syrians voted against Hafez Assad's government. One of them was Ammar Abdulhamid. Now exiled and awaiting political asylum in US, Syrian opposition leader talks to Ynet in exclusive interview.

Yitzhak Benhorin

WASHINGTON – In a national referendum held by late Syrian President Hafez Assad in 1998, only 219 people voted against the government. One of them was Ammar Abdulhamid, 40, a Syrian opposition activist, exiled from Damascus in 2005 and currently awaiting political asylum in the United States.

"The security agents give you a paper with a circle saying 'yes' and a circle saying 'no.' I voted 'no', and the person in front of me was shocked. He said, 'Look, you made a mistake. You said 'no' to the president.' He thought I had made a mistake. We expected for some time that somebody would come and say, 'Come with me', but it didn't happen. For 219 people, they didn't give a damn."

In his first interview with an Israeli news agency, Abdulhamid tells Ynet how he frequently took risks, wrote articles against the president and generally pissed off the Syrian administration, until they got tired of him and showed him the door.

In Washington he serves as representative of the National Salvation Front (NSF), a Syrian reform group operating abroad against President Bashar Assad’s regime.

So why didn’t they show him to a prison cell instead of deporting him? Abdulhamid believes it is because his mother was superstar actress Muna Wassef, one of Syrian’s most famous TV celebrities.

“It wasn’t easy to arrest the son of such a famous and popular actress,” he says.

Enemy of the regime

With long brown hair tied back in a ponytail and an easygoing demeanor, Abdulhamid isn’t exactly how one might imagine a Syrian reformist. His English is refined and he demonstrates impressive knowledge. He declares that he doesn’t believe in God and he has no qualms about talking with Israelis.

The first time he left Syria’s borders was in 1986, when he came to the United States to study at the University of Wisconsin. He returned to Damascus in 1994, but after a decade relocated to the US again, this time on a research fellowship at the Brookings Institute in Washington, DC. At the end of the fellowship, he returned to Syria – a rather surprising move considering the vehemently anti-Syrian articles he published while in Washington.

How did you become an enemy of the Syrian regime?

"They told me to leave, over a variety of issues. Apparently the project I was doing was a main issue. It was on majority-minority relations. So I am basically trying to create grassroots dialogue between different sects. I started in 2001, but officially in 2003."

So what did you do that was so wrong that they told you to leave?

"We were accused of fomenting the very thing we were trying to combat, which is sensitivities between the majority and minority. But I think what they are afraid of is these issues being raised at the popular level and being resolved at the popular level because our regime survives by exploiting the fears between the sects."

In 2004 he left for Washington, where he wrote for the English-language Lebanese newspaper the Daily Star. He wrote a joint article with Israeli professor Moshe Maoz on the need to renew the Israeli-Syrian peace process. It was the first time a Syrian and an Israel had written something together which appeared publicly.

Hariri murder was last straw

Despite his severely critical writings, Abdulhamid returned to Syria. He said he didn’t want to make trouble, and even made a commitment to hold his pen and stop writing against the regime. The quiet lasted until the regime arrested a group of Syrian intellectuals, followed shortly thereafter by the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and Abdulhamid could no longer keep quiet.

“I was a loud-mouth, I couldn't control my tongue. When Hariri was assassinated a lot of people started pouring into Syria and asking questions, 'Who did it?' and whatever, I was very clear that I thought the the president was behind it. And I was very clear in calling him a moron in a number of interviews, and I think that was always not a good move. I was in Damascus calling the president of my country, which is a dictatorship basically, a moron.

Why didn't they arrest you?

“Arresting me would have really been problematic, I think. The person who made the decision not to arrest me was Assef Shawkat, head of the Syrian intelligence. You have two problems. One, you are arresting the son of a very famous actress who is very respected in Syria, and who said very clearly at one point, 'I may not necessarily agree politically with what he's saying the whole time, but if anything happens to him, you know, he's my son.'”

After that meeting, Abdulhamid was invited to meet Shawkat, Assad’s brother-in-law, who is suspected to have been thickly involved in Hariri’s murder.

“I had a meeting with Shawkat - my wife insisted on coming with me, so instead of having an interrogation you have a social event, and he tries to sort of contain the situation. I was under a travel ban at the time, so they lifted the travel ban and I promised to stop writing and simply to work quietly.”

But Abdulhamid didn’t keep his mouth shut for long, and the regime started getting tired of him. Soon he found himself on a plane from Damascus with a one-way ticket.

That was probably Syria’s biggest mistake: Back in the US, Abdulhamid became the opposition’s intermediary between the Syrian opposition and the American administration.

“There are about a 100 active dissidents in Syria. The ones who are well known are 15-20 maybe. And I was never one of them… My strategy was, 'Look, I can get you the funding and support your activity so you wouldn't have to deal with the Americans directly or the Europeans or whoever.'”

Together with his colleagues from the Muslim Brotherhood, Abdulhamid founded the National Salvation Front, an umbrella organization of opposition groups working for the democratization of Syria. Former Syrian vice president Abd Al-Halim Khaddam is apparently closely associated with the Front.

What relation do you have with Khaddam, who was part of the corrupt dictatorship?

"He knows a lot of secrets and they are afraid of him. He meets with King Abdullah, he has access to people in the region. He has contacts with people inside the regime as well. Khaddam’s joining is also meant to signal to the regime that we aren’t here for revenge. We aren’t involved in vengeance or in the past. We want to operate like (Nelson) Mandela: We’ll forgive, but we won’t forget. Our faces are to the future.”

What is your stance on Israel?

"The Muslim Brotherhood, by the way, said they prefer a negotiated settlement with Israel. They are not calling for Jihad to return the Golan (Heights). They went public on it, and I was very surprised nobody in the media picked up on it. And the head of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sadr Al-Din al-Banouni, said it very clearly in an interview on al-Jazeera. This is exactly why we decided we can talk to the Muslim Brotherhood.

"We simply cannot ignore the Islamists. We are talking about change, about democracy, about elections at one point in time. So it's really good to sit down to realize with whom we can talk and how much they can moderate their language, and what sort of deals we can arrive at. Because either we do this or we have two other options: Either we talk to the Islamists and find moderates and work together for change at the risk of being betrayed. The other options are to stick to the status quo but then the status quo cannot hold a lot with the Assads.

"The final analysis is that they are a minority regime, they are dictators, and they are not addressing any of the country's problems … and had they been good, slightly enlightened, I would never be in the opposition. It is much better to work with a slightly enlightened regime than to risk the chaos that comes with change. So we either continue to cooperate with a regime that will continue to abuse the system or we resort to violence ... All we want is support were do not want someone to do the work for us … As long as we are building networks, and we know we are creating realities on the ground, I don't care if it takes ten years.

Why did you agree to do an interview for the Israeli media?

"Many Israelis are wondering whether they should talk to Assad or not. I said at one point they cannot deliver what he wants because sooner or later this regime is going to fall. Because it represents a very small group of people, because it is corrupt, because the economy in Syria is imploding, poverty is rising, the Kurdish-Arab divide is widening, the Sunni-Alawit divide is widening. So sooner or later it is going to pass either peacefully or violently.

"I hope for peace and if it is going to be violent I don't want to have anything to do with it. I really want Bashar to become a genius overnight, I really do. Even if he killed Hariri, I believe that, I am willing to forgive so many things, just to save us a violent solution for the country and to have some sense of reform. We do need to begin tackling the Sunni-Alawit divide because the more they postpone it the more it is going to get violent."

Rosy Scenarios & Regional Realities!

The Saudis, led by prince Bandar, seems to be doing a really great job trying to break up the HISH Alliance. They are doing this by engaging both the weakest and strongest links in the Alliance. Indeed, and rather than trying to wean the proven hopeless Assads off of their dependence on Iran and Hezbollah, as the pro-engagement crowd in the US was want to do, the Saudis went straight to the source, to the puppet-masters themselves, and showed them the wisdom of divesting themselves from the pesky and troublemaking Assads. In the meantime, they managed to sponsor an important summit in Mecca in which they sponsored a deal between the warring factions in Gaza, and reestablished their patronage over the weakest link in the Alliance – Hamas. Net results, the Assads are once again isolated, and the region might have taken the first real steps towards a compromise that can help most parties involved avert a disastrous and unnecessary showdown.

This is at least the scenario that seems to be unfolding these days, according to the reading of some observers.

In truth, however, it is indeed still too early in the day to celebrate and uncork those champagne bottles. This is not a done deal by far, and there are still plenty of opportunities to sabotage the whole thing. Moreover, the scenario itself does seem to call for some kind of a showdown with the Assads, who seem to be the ultimate losers here. Such a showdown, even if limited, is not going to be a rosy affair.

Let’s briefly explore some of the potential problems that might still lie ahead.

First, just like Ali Khamenei said in his recent meeting with Bashar, the alliance between Syria and Iran is well-nigh three decades old and will prove enduring. As such, the two sides might be staling for time while quietly writing an alternate scenario more suitable to their needs, interests and desires. So, we should just wait and see how things might progress over the next few weeks.

Even should Hezbollah and the March 14 Movement come to an understanding that ends up increasing Shia representation in the government and approving the establishment of the Hariri Tribunal, the adventurous Assads might still have enough wiggling room here to survive. For instance, considering the possibility that the Tribunal might fail to name people like Assef and Maher, the Assads might have the option to stage a failed coup against their villainous selves in which all the chief suspects, other than themselves, end up getting killed (seeing that having these people commit suicide would prove quite the hard sell at this stage).

The Assads will find themselves in a bit of a pickle, however, should the Tribunal end up casting any doubts or aspersions on any one of them. Rather than risking this, the Assads might be willing to risk it all in Lebanon before the Tribunal is approved by continuing to try to inflame the situation, the will and wishes of the Iranians and even Hezbollah notwithstanding. After all, they still have other willing allies and clients in Lebanon, ones which they seem able to mobilize at will (the Syrian Social National Party, radical Palestinian groups, small Islamist movements and cells, notto mention some Shia groups as well, perhaps even factions within Hezbollah). If this should happen, the Saudi-Iranian deal could falter, that is, unless it get reworked somehow in order to allow for some jointly-sanctioned action to take place against the Assads – a pretty complicated feat to accomplish even for the likes of Bandar. But it could happen.

In all cases, don’t expect the Assads to go down without a fight, and the "rosy" scenario with which we are presented is not likely to unfold as smoothly as some might think or wish.

A final problem is the fact that the Israelis, as one can detect from Jackson Diehl’s op-ed in the Washington Post,* may not be happy with the Mecca Accord and might attempt to rally US support to their position, which would, as usual, create enough complications to allow for the entire Saudi-Iranian deal to fall apart with all the disastrous consequences that this could bring.


* “Bush administration policy has been to strengthen Abbas at Hamas's expense; the accord undercut that approach and all but ruined Rice's plan to begin developing a "political horizon" at a meeting with Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert today.

Washington tried to set a couple of red lines for the Mecca talks: Hamas, it said, should be forced to accept international demands that it renounce violence and recognize Israel; and its prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, should not lead the new Palestinian cabinet. Bandar disregarded both.”

_________

Meanwhile, a friend has just been arrested, and a colleague could soon be stripped of his citizenship as a new form of punishment concocted by the sick minds of the Assads and their lackeys.

The Unreasonable Heretic!

A friend told me not too long ago that some people tend to find my position on the Assads to be somewhat unreasonable. After all, some of their stands and policies, especially with regard to the peace process and the Arab-Israeli Conflict seem to reflect how the majority of people in Syria and elsewhere in the region and the world feel and think. So why we not support them on these matters? Wouldn't this be the patriotic thing to do, regardless of how we feel about their internal policies?

Not from my perspective. If democracy and development are the things that we care most about, then we simply cannot let the fact that the Assads are robbing the country blind, squandering its scarce resources, mismanaging its affairs and depriving its youths of any real chance at making a decent living and of hope in a better future slip out of our mind, no matter how momentarily. Otherwise, we will continue to fall into that all too familiar trap wherein the national cause is given primacy over all other consideration.

For long we have been told that the national cause comes first, I say democracy and development come first. No, I believe that democracy and development are the real national cause.

So, it does not matter in the least to me if the Assads tend to say or adopt the right rhetoric sometimes, so long as they hold on to power through sham elections, laws and constitutions and the sheer might of their military, there is nothing right or legitimate about them or about anything they do or represent. For all practical purposes we have to consider them as evil, even at the risk of sounding too corny or unreasonable sometimes. That’s the way it should be. People who hold on to power in an absolutist manner do not merit our understanding, our nuanced perspectives and our reasonableness, only our contempt and enmity.

The national interest does not benefit in the least from postponing the struggle for our freedom from oppression, for any reason whatsoever. Freedom comes first.

This emphatic stand of mine, however, should not be misconstrued as signifying some kind of appeal to violence or a willingness to resort to it. No. The Assads are not going to drag me to their depraved level. My personal approach will remain nonviolent in nature, albeit somewhat revolutionary.

___________

Speaking of revolutions, the latest edition of BitterLemons-International has a special on the Arab Blogosphere that features an article by yours heretically, two wonderful fellow bloggers from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and a regional correspondent that I absolutely respect and admire.

So, What’s on My Zune?

In the second part to the interview with Assads (video, text) Diane Sawyer managed to redeem herself slightly at least by raising the issues of the Hariri investigation and human rights. But hers was still a light approach that allowed our very own spineless version of Mr. Bean, with all the awkwardness and none of the charm, to escape unchallenged with such ludicrous assertion as “We don't have such political prisoners” and “So it's going to be democracy, but according to our standards.” Yeah. But, I wonder what sort of standards would a man whose entire family is mired in blood, oppression and corruption have? Any ideas anyone? I guess they are the kind of standards that allow for a dimwitted eye-doctor-in-waiting to be brought in to replace his late artifacts-smuggling brothels-frequenting brother as the heir apparant (or more likely in this case the heir absolument) of the Presidential throne. Nothing to challenge here, ipparently.

On the other hand, with regard to one of those other unchallenged yet equally ludicrous assertions, namely that Syria is “the main player” in stabilizing Iraq, well, if Syria is indeed such a player in Iraq, and if the Top Lion of Syria indeed fears the domino effect of “the chaos” and “the instability,” as he put it, why aren’t the Assads already doing something about stabilizing the situation in Iraq? Why are they waiting to be approached by the US for talks over Iraq? Are they really afraid of “the chaos” or are they afraid of the American troops? Or they simply unable to do anything about the situation in Iraq, but would like very much for the US to believe that they could, so they could carve a deal for themselves? Tony Badran elaborates this point further in his recent post.

On a different, though definitely related note, Seth Wikas of the Washington Institute, points out in his recent article in the Daily Star, to an often forgotten reality with regard to the Golan: the ambivalent feelings of its indigenous Syrian Druze population with regard to the whole issue of the necessity of return to Syrian sovereignty one hapless day. Indeed, the corruption and authoritarianism of the Assads have created the sort of state that no one in his right mind would like to go back to, which is why I am a fool, and which is why the Assads must go. Before, that is, our best and brightest end p living in Purdue, Indiana, as Mrs. Sawyer so eloquently put it, or, more likely, end up being buried in desperate attempts at trying to eke out some meager yet dignified subsistence in increasingly undignified and undignifying conditions.

And with regard to the Golan, let me point out to some other neglected facts and soon-to-be facts, namely: that much of the land on the Syrian side of the Golan has either already been purchased, at the cheapest possible prices of course, by the sons of bitches of the Syrian regime, who also happen to be the sons of high-ranking government officials, with other choice real estate morsels and tidbits being declared public land, meaning that the state will eventually sell them to the selfsame SOBs and their lackeys when the right time comes. The Syrians of the Golan have the prospect of poverty and fleecing to look forward to when peace finally prevails, that is, if the Assads are the ones to be rewarded with it.

Biladi, biladi, biladi, laki hubbi wa fou'adi. Oh my country, you have my love and my heart.

And I will have nothing to show for it. Ever.

PS. This whole episode has given iPod a bad name, I think, if I were an iPod executive I’d sue. iPersonally, I am switching to Zune, and will stick to classical music, classic rock and New Age, with all due respect to Faith Hill and Shania Twain. Keep on Rockin’ in the Free World! Yeah.