AMERICAN STRIKE ON SYRIA; STRATEGIC FACT OR ANALYST FICTION! By Ghassan Kadi 29 August 2014

AMERICAN STRIKE ON SYRIA; STRATEGIC FACT OR ANALYST FICTION!
By Ghassan Kadi
29 August 2014
The talk about an imminent American strike on the Government of Syria and the people of Syria is ridiculous to say the least. 
The word “ridiculous” has been used herein in reference to the use of the term “imminent” or similar strong words in such reports. 
This is not to say that an American strike on Syria, its government and people is in the realm of impossibility. As a matter of fact, the history of the last five to six decades proves without any shadow of doubt, that America does not think much before deciding to bomb any country of its choosing, with or without a reason. 

However, at best, an American attack on Syria, its government and people, during this particular phase, is only speculation, and analysts making such claims should report them as speculation and not as facts.

One can be a PhD in Political Science without mastering the art of political analysis. Political analysis, just like writing skills, art, sporting prowess etc., is a skill and a talent that can be nurtured and improved. However, it cannot be taught. You can teach someone to sight read and play “Fur Elise” faultlessly, but you cannot teach any person how to be a composer.

In this distinguished group of ours, over the last three years or so, we have seen many sorts of over the top, irrational theories come and go. The story of the alleged “imminent” strike on Syria will be one of those stories, but perhaps not the last.

Political analysis has no real rules and regulations, after all, a lot of it can be biased and underpinned by favouritism and thus using what is meant to be objective and informed pieces of analytical literature as a means of spreading propaganda. Fox News and its protégé Al Jazeera are perfect examples of this category. 

Another less vicious form of improper political analysis is one that is based on charged emotions. A political analyst cannot make proper assessments of situations if he or she is allowing his/her passion, fear, pursuit of vengeance, patriotism, political or religious indoctrination and similar mindsets to mask his/her rationality and allowing them to stand in the way of perceiving facts as they are.

This is when strategic thinking comes into play. An army general wants to win a forthcoming battle he is about to enter. His emotions are involved. His political, national, perhaps even religious affiliations are all involved, but for him to win the battle he has to think strategically, with his mind and not with his heart.

A political analyst should not be any different, even if he/she has specific preferences. In this respect, as Syrian patriots and supporters of Syria, its people and its government, we have to think with the mind of that army general going into battle before we put our thoughts on paper.

I have great respect for Pepe Escobar, Anthony Cartalucci, Andrew Korybyko and others who have supported Syria. However, I feel very dismayed, to put it mildly, when I see their followers mirroring their thoughts in this group with a passion that I hate to admit is quite irrational. Even if we reduce these analysts’ theories to mere speculations, a proper analysis of the situation clearly indicates that those speculations are far from being tenable.

Ironically, in the Arab world, there is no such talk in the media or at the tables of cafes. The only outspoken cynics to this new direction of a possible Syrian-US collaboration, if there is indeed any, is coming from the mouths of Islamists and their supporters who are saying that the truth has finally come out and that Syria, America, Iran and Hezbollah have all along been colluding to wipe out Sunnis and that they are no longer capable of hiding their collusion.

There is absolutely no talk in the Arab world and Arab media about a possible US strike on Syria, its government and its people. Here one has to stop and wonder as to what level of “inside information” those non -Arab alleged experts of the politics of the Levant and region have. Do they believe that eminent Arab journalists, analysts and the like, are unaware or perhaps too incompetent to foresee such a strike and write about it ? or do they think that they have all the information at their fingertips without having to read what their Arab counterparts are saying and, more importantly, what they are not saying? This is indeed arrogance at its worst.

President Obama has said that he doesn’t yet have a strategy to fight ISIS. It is indeed difficult to have such a strategy, especially one that is meant to be effective on the long term. It is possible, and again, I would not say probable or definite, as I not jump to the level of turning my speculations into facts, but, I will say, that it is possible that President Obama has finally woken up to realise that the world has got one billion Muslim youths and that, each and every one of them is a potential ISIS recruit.

Logic implies that any which way America dealt with Islamic Jihadists in the past, up until very recently it had the false impression that it could wield them. When Bandar went to Putin last year he bragged about his ability to turn the Jihadists on and off at will. It didn’t take long after that for Bandar to fall on his sword, showing the rest of the world that he is nothing more than a buffoon and an idiot who is totally unable to have any control on the monster that he helped to create in conjunction with the Americans.

If Obama has suddenly woken up to this and realised that with Bandar out of the picture in that capacity and with the rest of the Saudi royals begging Obama to keep ISIS at bay, then he will have to change strategy and tactics, and do this fast.
In such an event, the last thing on Obama’s mind will be a regime change in Syria. 

In politics the shades of grey are the determinant factors, not the black and white. A political analyst should have the knowledge and understand military strategy and human nature and then apply to this common sense. It would seem that those unwritten rules have been compromised in this new craze, sending fear and doubts, especially within this group. This is not a call for censorship, it is a call for reason. Finally, I beg to excuse the repetition, but analysts and their followers who are fearing an American attack on Syria at this point should be responsible enough to say that they are reporting their own speculation and not facts.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/283089981710448/permalink/841518792534228/

NEVER TO BE TRUSTED AGAIN. By Ghassan Kadi 26 July 2014

NEVER TO BE TRUSTED AGAIN
26 July 2014

Once a traitor, then never to be trusted.
Khaled Mashaal did a very dirty back flip on Syria 3 years ago, and he should never be trusted again. The same goes for Ismail Haniyye.
It is sad that the fate of the people of Gaza is in the hands of Hamas. Hamas as a whole cannot be trusted anymore, not after it turned its back on its friends (Syria, Hezbollah and Iran) and shook hands with the Qataris.

Now, that Hamas feels cornered again, it is trying to flirt with Iran and Hezbollah. This should not be accepted.

There are certainly some good elements in Hamas, but unless the leadership dumps many faces, especially Mashaal and Haniyye, then their current stand can only be seen as opportunistic.

Hamas is using Gazans as humans shields and offering them on the sacrifice alter. They do not seem to care about how many get killed. What they want is not simply the liberation of Palestine. They want their own version of it, under their own rule and conditions.

Finally, I would like to ask this simple question. How is it that Hamas was able to dig tunnels that connect it with Egypt and even Israel and they are unable to build bomb shelters for Gazans?
Now, that Hamas feels cornered again, it is trying to flirt with Iran and Hezbollah. This should not be accepted.

There are certainly some good elements in Hamas, but unless the leadership dumps many faces, especially Mashaal and Haniyye, then their current stand can only be seen as opportunistic.

Hamas is using Gazans as humans shields and offering them on the sacrifice alter. They do not seem to care about how many get killed. What they want is not simply the liberation of Palestine. They want their own version of it, under their own rule and conditions.

Finally, I would like to ask this simple question. How is it that Hamas was able to dig tunnels that connect it with Egypt and even Israel and they are unable to build bomb shelters for Gazans?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694132367329580&set=a.108568162552673.13501.100001984705808&type=3&permPage=1&ifg=1

THE SYRIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS;DEVOLUTION OF A REVOLUTION. Part II. By Ghassan Kadi.

THE SYRIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS; DEVOLUTION OF A REVOLUTION.
Part II

By Ghassan Kadi. 30 May 2014


Are Syrians going to the polls now to actually make a choice, or is this a façade operation orchestrated by the “regime” as the “Anti-Syrian Coalition” wants us to believe? We cannot superficially look at today’s event without examining the growing pains that have led to this moment.


President Hafez Assad was a man of great wisdom and vision, and he knew it. He knew what was right for Syria and its people, and he knew that only through hard work, perseverance, prudence and above all, great sacrifices that Syria could return to the road of recovery.


His perception of Syria was not any different from his perception of Palestine and Lebanon. On the 8th of March 1974, he made a clear message to Israel and the West when he said that Palestine was “a principal part of Southern Syria”. He later on sent his troops into Lebanon to prevent it from being blackholed into the Israeli sphere of dominion. 

For his perception of Palestine, he paid a hefty price. He was punished heavily by the West and misunderstood by Arabs; including the PLO chief Yasser Arafat.

He always rightfully believed that the Palestinian question was too big for Palestinians to handle on their own. It is, in his view, a central Arab issue, and more specifically, a Syrian issue.

“Peace is not for the weak” President Assad always said, and he was unable to persuade Arab leaders of his long-term agenda of building up enough might to stand up against the bullish American-Israeli alliance. Arab leaders had already taken the decision to comply with the wishes of the enemy, and the last thing they wanted was a confident patriot telling them that they should unite and fight, especially if that patriot was an Alawite.    

Even Arafat insisted on the “independent Palestinian decision”, and his decisions were often at odds with those of Assad and did not fit into the long-term strategies. Assad regarded Palestine as a part of Syria and that it was his stewardship that was needed to bring it justice, but Arafat regarded him as a domineering dictating usurper.

Unable to make sense to Arab defeatists and the gung ho Arafat, Assad invested in educating the Syrian population about the responsibility that rested on their shoulders. Once again, he needed longevity and consistency in order to be able to achieve this, and not policies that can be swept away by the winner of the next “democratic” elections.

This finally brings us to the current Syrian Presidential election.

When Syrians went to vote for Hafez Assad from 1971 onwards, they did not have much of a choice. This is true. 

Hafez Assad was a great believer in the patriotism of his people. The memories of Yusuf Al-Azmeh and his gallant men were alive in his memory. Al-Azmeh moved with an outnumbered and ill-equipped regiment to stop the French occupation of Damascus in 1920. Al-Azmeh with his men marched to their certain death, but they were determined not to allow the French into Damascus unopposed. 

The victorious Henri Gouraud marched into Damascus, desecrated the tomb of Saladin by putting his foot on it saying: “Saladin, we have returned”. Memories of those stories, the western treacheries, the creation of Israel etc.. never left the President’s mind and he made a point of giving all his political Western visitors lessons in history in all of his meetings with them.

Assad knew that his people, the Syrian people had what it took to be fiercely independent and all they needed was a leader they can trust, one who can galvanize them, and he knew he was that man. He was bemused by people who simply cheered for him to make themselves look good, but without proper understanding of his policies and strategies. He always sought allies, not stooges, but true allies who were able to understand, prepared to walk the talk, and walk the distance were rare and hard to find.

Patriotic education became an integral component of the school curriculum. Army conscription had already been in place. Yet many Syrians remained skeptical and regarded the whole exercise as Baathist propaganda. However, after 3-4 years of Muslim Brotherhood terror campaign of 1979-1982, many Syrians realized that Syria indeed had many internal enemies and that the leadership was able to deal with them effectively. Even though those events made Assad lose some popularity with the Islamic fundamentalists, but his popularity amongst the general populace increased. 

Later on, with Assad’s defiance to the American-Israeli plot, his refusal to surrender, his refusal to the “Reagan Plan”, his ability to turn the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon on Mehahim Begin’s head, his perseverance and successes, all finally paid dividends and made him gain more and more domestic support.

Early on in his “reign”, he was voted in because they had no other choice. Later on, some perhaps voted for him out of fear, but in each subsequent election, more and more Syrians voted for him out of conviction, devotion and love.

 After the angel of death took this great man away, continuity dictated that his son should succeed him. If this meant dictatorship, then it also meant that the fruit of 30 years of labour and sacrifices were not going to be wasted away.

 President Bashar Assad was steadfast and diligent to stick to the policies of reform and resistance to the Western-Israeli plot of submission.

It is of little wonder that by then the defiant proud and independent Syria had angered many nations and made a score of enemies within and without its borders. Enemies with very broad and diverse agendas, only united by their hatred towards Syria’s stand of honour.

 When the “War On Syria” started in 2011, the popularity of Bashar was very high, but some Syrians were taken by the fervour of the “Arab Spring” and genuinely thought that there was indeed a move in Syria for more and quicker reform. Those reformists however were not the ones that carried guns and destroyed the infrastructure. Before too long, the enemies who are consumed with their deep fundamentalist sectarian hatred emerged from the woodwork. 

 Before too long, Syrians advocating reform realized that they were duped, and one by one, individually and in groups, they are waking up to the true conspiracy. Even some of them who took up arms are now responding to the calls of reconciliation and amnesty. We have recently seen this happen in many places, the most advertised one was the one in Homs.

 Earlier on during the “War On Syria”, the West was “demanding” new elections in Syria. Now, with all of the recent developments, with the series of victories of the Syrian Army, and most importantly perhaps, with the rising popularity of President Bashar, the West is treating the Syrian Presidential Election like a non-event. 

 Little does the West know that before going to the polls, Syrians had 3 long years of war and 3 long years of remembering the words and warnings of the late and great Hafez Assad. Some of what he forewarned about did not make much sense to those with short vision. Now, they know that he was right. They had to learn the hard way. Now, they also know that for them to secure the continuity of their dignity, they have to remain steadfast and united behind their President of choice.

 Finally, the revolution of Hafez Assad had gone the full circle. His vision is now in the hearts and minds of his people to whom he devoted his life. 

 Long before the current elections, Syrians have decided to vote with their blood. Blood is thicker than water and reverberates thunders that will echo for centuries, long after the poll count has been taken.

THE SYRIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION; DEVOLUTION OF A REVOLUTION (part 1). By Ghassan Kadi

THE SYRIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS; DEVOLUTION OF A REVOLUTION.
Part I. 
By Ghassan Kadi.   29 May 2014

 If we were to analyze the Syrian presidential election, we should stop and look at the controversy it is creating and the Western propaganda that are downplaying the ev...ent. In doing so, we must feel at liberty to have a closer look at the Western system that puts itself head and shoulders above any other political system in the world.


The West has bamboozled the world with terms such as Free Economy, Democracy, and so go forth, and gave descriptions to other nations that are not on par different descriptions of inferior ranks that go all the way from Second/Third World countries to being part of the “Axis of Evil”.

Western Democracy has not been given the test of universality of application. For it to be a universal model, it must have what it takes to make work under all socio-economic conditions. In reality, it has only been put to the test in nations that have already “reached” the so-called “First World Status”.

For the last two centuries or so, the West did not “need” any major change, an ideological coup to make life better for its people; and hence democracy, revised versions inherited from the Roman or Westminster systems worked fine. For the West that had usurped and plundered other nations, created for itself an economy of abundance, it is easy to pontificate and proclaim that it had found the perfect system, and then to have the audacity to say that the rest of the world must adopt it.
Now here is a question. Is Western style democracy able to make huge changes when such changes are warranted? 

 To answer this question, we will have to watch Europe and see if Western Democracy is going to be able to deal with the declining economic power of different nations in Europe. For better or for worse, we have already seen a taste of such scenarios in Greece, but this is perhaps the tip of the ice berg.

 In saying this, the USA is not far behind. According to some economic analysts, the American economy is far worse than that of Europe and even Greece. It had only been kept afloat by short-term measures such as “financial easing” (ie printing money), measures that will at best push away the fix, only to make it much harder to achieve. In this instance, the Obama administration knows what hole it is digging, but it is only making short-term measures that make it look good and popular.

 The bottom line here is that major decisions of governess which imply sacrifices by individuals for the sake of public good are often taken with popular disdain. Many people think about now and today. What is in it for me? How is this new government policy going to affect my business and my family? It is invariably on such individualistic bases that Western voters go to the polls. 

 This is why in Western democracies, politicians present hope and promise wealth and affluence. This is how they win votes and get elected.  

 Wars such as WWI and WWII did not last long enough to put Western Democracy under the long-term test of duress, neither did the Great Depression. Citizens of poor nations constantly live under standards that are well below those of the Great Depression.
When President Hafez Assad assumed power after the “Corrective Movement” in 1970 and had this followed by a referendum, Syria had a multitude of huge problems. It needed a total overhaul and gigantic nation-building programs. 

 If President Assad had to deal with holding on power the Western style, he would have had to either make false promises, or alternatively go to his constituency and say something to this effect:
“Our economy is in ruins, our army needs huge amounts of funds to be modernized and well equipped. We need to implement extremely tough economic measures. Most of you will be worse off for a long time before it gets better. We have to ban imports of all luxury goods. We must dedicate 80% of our budget to the army. Above all, all citizens must understand that their nation is in a state of war, they must fight sectarianism and fundamentalism, unite behind their leader, put their trust in his judgement, re and re-elect him until he gets the job done, and take it as it comes. And by the way, a ban on banana import will also be put in place….sorry, but if you want to eat bananas, you will have to learn how to grow them”.

In reality, these were the challenges that President Hafez Assad had to address, and the longevity of his presidency was the guarantee that the reforms were not to be derailed by some smart jump-up politician who would eventually come and promise the earth just to get himself elected.

 In simple terms, Western-style democracy where nation-building is essential does not work, especially when nations are in a state of war like Syria is. After all, Western leaders have two major concerns, how to get elected, and how to get re-elected, and they do this at any cost, just to appease their voters, treating public interest with least concern.

 The West will soon find itself in a dilemma in which aspiring politicians are going to find it very hard to get elected, unless they capitalize on rising emotions such as fundamentalism and radicalism. We are in fact witnessing beginnings to such trends in Europe. The Ultra-Right groups, including the Tea Party in the USA are aware of the loophole in the system and are using it to their favour.

 If democracy is going to work well, it will have to be based on what is best for the majority, not on cumulative majorities of private agendas. Western democracy has been based on the latter, and its failings were fairly invisible because it ruled during times of economic strength. This is changing, and the West will soon either have to drop the Democracy that it took to the world with B-52’s attached to it, or sit back and allow it (Western Democracy) to turn into a monster that will put extreme radicals in power.

To be continued.

THE SYRIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS; DEVOLUTION OF A REVOLUTION. Part I. By Ghassan Kadi 29 May 2014

THE SYRIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS; DEVOLUTION OF A REVOLUTION. Part I.
By Ghassan Kadi
29 May 2014

If we were to analyze the Syrian presidential election, we should stop and look at the controversy it is creating and the Western propaganda that are downplaying the event. In doing so, we must feel at liberty to have a closer look at the Western system that puts itself head and shoulders above any other political system in the world.

The West has bamboozled the world with terms such as Free Economy, Democracy, and so go forth, and gave descriptions to other nations that are not on par different descriptions of inferior ranks that go all the way from Second/Third World countries to being part of the “Axis of Evil”.

Western Democracy has not been given the test of universality of application. For it to be a universal model, it must have what it takes to make work under all socio-economic conditions. In reality, it has only been put to the test in nations that have already “reached” the so-called “First World Status”.

For the last two centuries or so, the West did not “need” any major change, an ideological coup to make life better for its people; and hence democracy, revised versions inherited from the Roman or Westminster systems worked fine. For the West that had usurped and plundered other nations, created for itself an economy of abundance, it is easy to pontificate and proclaim that it had found the perfect system, and then to have the audacity to say that the rest of the world must adopt it.

Now here is a question. Is Western style democracy able to make huge changes when such changes are warranted?

To answer this question, we will have to watch Europe and see if Western Democracy is going to be able to deal with the declining economic power of different nations in Europe. For better or for worse, we have already seen a taste of such scenarios in Greece, but this is perhaps the tip of the ice berg.

In saying this, the USA is not far behind. According to some economic analysts, the American economy is far worse than that of Europe and even Greece. It had only been kept afloat by short-term measures such as “financial easing” (ie printing money), measures that will at best push away the fix, only to make it much harder to achieve. In this instance, the Obama administration knows what hole it is digging, but it is only making short-term measures that make it look good and popular.

The bottom line here is that major decisions of governess which imply sacrifices by individuals for the sake of public good are often taken with popular disdain. Many people think about now and today. What is in it for me? How is this new government policy going to affect my business and my family? It is invariably on such individualistic bases that Western voters go to the polls.

This is why in Western democracies, politicians present hope and promise wealth and affluence. This is how they win votes and get elected.

Wars such as WWI and WWII did not last long enough to put Western Democracy under the long-term test of duress, neither did the Great Depression. Citizens of poor nations constantly live under standards that are well below those of the Great Depression.

When President Hafez Assad assumed power after the “Corrective Movement” in 1970 and had this followed by a referendum, Syria had a multitude of huge problems. It needed a total overhaul and gigantic nation-building programs.

If President Assad had to deal with holding on to power the Western style, he would have had to either make false promises, or alternatively go to his constituency and say something to this effect:

     “Our economy is in ruins, our army needs huge amounts of funds to be modernized and well equipped. We need to implement extremely tough economic measures. Most of you will be worse off for a long time before it gets better. We have to ban imports of all luxury goods. We must dedicate 80% of our budget to the army. Above all, all citizens must understand that their nation is in a state of war, they must fight sectarianism and fundamentalism, unite behind their leader, put their trust in his judgement, re and re-elect him until he gets the job done, and take it as it comes. And by the way, a ban on banana import will also be put in place….sorry, but if you want to eat bananas, you will have to learn how to grow them”.

In reality, these were the challenges that President Hafez Assad had to address, and the longevity of his presidency was the guarantee that the reforms were not to be derailed by some smart jump-up politician who would eventually come and promise the earth just to get himself elected.

In simple terms, Western-style democracy where nation-building is essential does not work, especially when nations are in a state of war like Syria is. After all, Western leaders have two major concerns, how to get elected, and how to get re-elected, and they do this at any cost, just to appease their voters, treating public interest with least concern.

The West will soon find itself in a dilemma in which aspiring politicians are going to find it very hard to get elected, unless they capitalize on rising emotions such as fundamentalism and radicalism. We are in fact witnessing beginnings to such trends in Europe. The Ultra-Right groups, including the Tea Party in the USA are aware of the loophole in the system and are using it to their favour.

If democracy is going to work well, it will have to be based on what is best for the majority, not on cumulative majorities of private agendas. Western democracy has been based on the latter, and its failings were fairly invisible because it ruled during times of economic strength. This is changing, and the West will soon either have to drop the Democracy that it took to the world with B-52’s attached to it, or sit back and allow it (Western Democracy) to turn into a monster that will put extreme radicals in power.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=662955567113927&set=a.108568162552673.13501.100001984705808&type=3&ifg=1

To be continued

THE IRANIAN-SYRIAN EVOLUTION: By Ghassan Kadi

 

THE IRANIAN-SYRIAN EVOLUTION:

By Ghassan Kadi.  26 May 2014

 

The complexity of the Iranian-Syrian relationship is not any simpler than that of the Russian-Syrian relationship, and even though the labour for the former was shorter and the birth was easier, the relationship between the Levant and Iran, formerly known as Persia, goes back a long way, much longer than any interaction between the Levant and Russia.

After all, it ...was the Persians who first invaded Babylon and put an end to three millennia of Mesopotamian civilization. And even though Iran adopted Islam much later, but this came after losing the battle of Al-Kadisiyyeh to the Muslim Arabs.    

Whilst the two cultures mingled to a great extent after coming of Islam, rivalry between Arabs and Persian (Al-Furs) remained alive and well. For example, many Persian scholars excelled in the Arabic language and left well renowned legacies in Arabic literature, medicine, mathematics and other fields of excellence, but their Persian origin was always celebrated by their peers.

Arabs and Persians don’t even agree what name to use for the body of water that separates Persia from Arabia. Arabs call it the Arab Gulf, and Persian call the Persian Gulf.

What complicated the tense relationship between Arabs and Persians even further was perhaps the fact that Persia adopted Shiite Islam as against Sunni Islam to which the majority of Muslim Arabs belong.

But this is not all. When Israel was established in 1948, the Shah of Iran was quick to recognize the Hebrew state. He built strong relationships with Israel, and his troops conducted many joint military exercises with the Israelis, needless to say that he supplied Israel with oil, especially at war time to help Israel with its war efforts.

Moreover, in 1971 the Shah decided to grab 3 islands in the Gulf and called them his own, and no Arab Gulf state dared to challenge him, and later on in 1975, he coerced Iraq into sharing with him Shat Al-Arab, Iraq’s only and very narrow access to the sea.

The Shah was America’s “Gulf Police”, a bully and a thug much loved by America and Israel, and much hated by Arabs. His quick fall from grace eventually proved that he was much hated by the majority of Iranians as well. 

When he was swept away by the Islamic Revolution and left Iran on the 16th of January 1979 to never return, it was a very tumultuous time in the Levant, and especially for the then Syrian President Hafez Assad. Just a few months earlier, and specifically on the 17th of September 1978, Syria had just lost its most power ally when Egypt signed the Camp David Accords with Israel leaving Syria all alone. In a desperate attempt to find new allies, Assad tried to bury the hatchet and reconcile with Iraq, his Baathist cousins, but Saddam Hussein was a very suspicious man with an obsession for power that was much stronger than any Pan-Arab obligations. Some steps were made in the right direction, but the honeymoon didn’t last long and both of Syria and Iraq blamed each other for the collapse of the efforts to bring the parties together, but it was in reality in Syria’s vested interest for the reconciliation to come to fruition; a fact that clearly indicates who the culprit was.

President Assad knew well that one of Israel’s major objectives in Camp David was to divide the Arabs and to corner Syria so that it can bully it into submission. 

Furthermore, Syria was bogged down in Lebanon, with 30,000 troops stationed there unable to bring peace into the country, and last but not least, the Muslim Brotherhood was waging a terror campaign within Syria targeting military personnel and civilians known for their loyalty to the government; not to mention the wave of bombs and mass executions in which hundreds, including top army personnel and scholars, were gunned down in cold blood.

President Assad knew that he had to contend with the enemy from within on his own, but on the regional front, was waited for a miracle to happen, a miracle that would upset the balance of power to his favour.

Soon after assuming power, Ayatollah Khomeini was quick to renounce the United States (The Great Satan) and Israel, and in a tokenistic move, after severing diplomatic ties with Israel, he offered the Israeli Embassy building to the PLO for it to house its Embassy in it.

Those who knew President Hafez Assad well, knew that he did not have a single sectarian bone in his body, but the fact that he was born in an Alawite (Shiite sub-sect) family was to haunt his image and perception by some others for the rest of his life. In reality, it was the sectarians who accused him of having sectarian agendas, because often people with an affliction believe that all other humans are the same as they are.  With his national interests in mind, when President Assad saw the 180 degree turn in Iran, he saw in it a huge opportunity; the miracle he had been waiting to happen.

From a huge and mighty regional supporter of Israel and the West, almost overnight, Iran has turned in the opposite direction. How much better could this get? He thought. He was quick to endorse Iran and extended his support to the new government. But just because the new government in Iran was Shiite Islamic, conservative Arab Sunni leaders did not find it easy for them to follow the footsteps of Assad. 

He tried to explain to his Arab peers that his approval of Iran’s new government is one that is strategic, not religious. But to his dismay, Arab leaders, especially those of the Gulf region could not believe that an Alawite making any alliance with a Shiite state does not have hidden agendas.

What made his position less convincing to the Gulf leaders was his crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in 1982. In reality again, the crackdown, brutal as it was, was necessary to establish peace and order, and the culprits had to be hunted down regardless of their religious affiliations. If anything, the current war on Syria has proved that President Hafez Assad was a bit too lenient in allowing moderate Islamists to continue to operate. They simply gathered forces, regrouped, sought foreign support and waited to be strong enough to pounce back, and this time with great vengeance.

Iran too had a scandalous affair that sullied its name and helped strengthen the argument against it. When Saddam declared war on Iran, its military arsenal was all American, but with the American embargo, Iran was unable to get more supplies let alone spare parts. Israel stealthily approached Iran and offered to make those supplies. America’s intention behind the embargo was to enfeeble Iran and facilitate Saddam’s victory. At that time, Saddam was America’s regional favourite. Israel’s intention on the other hand was to prolong the war to enfeeble both enemies, and also in an attempt to woo Iran back into the pro-Israel camp. 

When the Iran-Contra scandal, as it became later on known, was all out in the open, the line of red faces extended all the way from Tehran to Washington. 

Iran was stuck in between a rock and a hard place, and obviously it chose pragmatism as against principles; a decision that eventually secured saving its neck.

However, the war with Iraq did not dampen the efforts to bolster the Syrian-Iranian relationships. Hezbollah was perhaps a big catalyst, and the new alliance of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah proved to be formidable enough to change the course of the region’s history.

The Iranian-Syrian alliance was the corner stone of the rise of Hezbollah to power and the Israeli defeat of 2000 when its troops withdrew unconditionally from Lebanon. Israel suffered another defeat in 2006 at the hands of Hezbollah, and currently lives in fear of being showered by its missiles.

Ever since the defeat of 1967, Assad’s nightmare was Israel’s military superiority. To defeat it or at least to be able to deter it was his dream. Finally, that alliance provided that deterrent he was seeking.

The current war on Syria was orchestrated by its enemies in order to punish it because it refused to surrender. In the world of today, there are only two types of states, those who will bow to the American will and those who refuse to. In the Levant in specific, Israel comes into the scene and the order of kowtowing becomes a bit more complex. A state that does not kowtow to both America and Israel will be punished by either one or both. 

What unites Iran and Syria is that they both refuse to kowtow.

LEADING UP TO 25 MAY 2000 By Ghassan Kadi

LEADING  UP TO 25 MAY 2000

Ghassan Kadi
25 May 2014

Fourteen years ago I was travelling, and I was in my hotel room watching the news with a friend (Scottish) when to my surprise I saw the Israeli troops retreating from Lebanon.  The (Western) commentary was saying that positions vacated by the Israelis were soon taken over by Hezbollah. My Scottish friend said:  “poor Lebanon, from one hand to another”.

I looked at my friend and said: “Do you know the real story behind this”. He said: “No”. Then endearingly I said: “Then shut up and hear it”.

Few people in the West, and indeed the Middle East, are aware what happened on that day and the monumental events that preceded it.

When the 1967 war broke out and Israel won huge areas of land from Egypt, Jordan and Syria, some  Lebanese that Lebanon is out of the equation and that the West will always defend Lebanon’s neutrality.

This is a long saga that would take volumes to transcribe into words to every detail, let alone the emotions and pain that I personally had first-hand  experience with.  But from a “neutral” weak and most definitely a very small state, Lebanon was destined to become the hammer that broke Israel’s back.

Soon after the 1967 war, and more so after the event of “Black September” in Jordan in which the PLO was kicked out of Jordan, the PLO turned Lebanon into its base of logistics and operations. Israel did not take this lightly and Lebanon, especially South Lebanon, was punished heavily with regular air raids and shelling, and in most instances, totally unprovoked.  

From 1968 till 1982, this nightmare went on and on relentlessly, and the inhabitants of South Lebanon had to flee from their homes on many occasions when the fighting escalated, and in many situations finding their homes in total ruins upon their return.

In March 1978 Israel launched a major offensive against South Lebanon and moved in by 40 kms to withdraw a few months later but not before it established a safety zone in order to keep Israeli territory beyond the firing  range of the PLO’s missiles. For that purpose, Israel sponsored a renegade ex Lebanese Army officer, Major Saad Haddad to establish the “South Lebanon Army”, which was nothing more than an Israeli watchdog, doing Israel’s dirty work.

But that measure was not “effective” enough, and in June 1982, Israel decided to invade South Lebanon and to push the PLO totally out of Lebanon. By then, Lebanon was already suffering from seven years of Civil War. Its people were divided between supported of the Palestinians and their cause and supporters of Lebanese neutrality.

By that time, those who believed in restoring Lebanon’s neutrality realized that it was not going to be easy, and it had to be fought for. To them, neutrality meant to appease Israel and to go cahoots with the Israeli-US road map which had reached a new pinnacle with the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt.

By that time also, even some Lebanese supporters of the PLO were growing weary of their support, and they felt that their sacrifices were neither reciprocated nor appreciated. There was a growing disgruntlement with the PLO in South Lebanon to the extent that some towns received the Israeli troops with showering them with rice; a tradition used to welcome those who are dear and valued. An inhabitant of the town of Katermaya decided to welcome the Israeli troops with a round of bullets in the air, another Lebanese celebratory tradition. To his dismay and that of his town, his bullets were mistaken as enemy fire and were responded to by the Israelis by heavy shelling that left the town in ruins.

The ficticious honeymoon didn’t last long. Almost immediately Israeli troops started to terrorize the population making sweeping arrests, often having a hooded person identifying people (mainly young men) who had any association with the PLO, albeit an association with someone who is Palestinian. Tens of thousands were arrested and sent to the makeshift prison camp in a town called Ansar, without any charges and/or any trials. On the economic front, hundreds of trucks laden with Israeli goods forced their way daily into the local markets, and their goods which mainly included fresh produce and fish, had to be all sold first before Lebanese producers could sell theirs. The flooded the market with all sorts of goods, including Coca Colas can with Hebrew script.

This is not to forget the state of general despair. Israel entered Beirut itself. The Syrian Army in Lebanon was a peace-keeping force, not equipped to fight with Israel. And even at the best of times, Syria was not able to confront Israel on its own. Nonetheless, Syria sent fighter jets to confront Israel and lost over 80 of them in dogfights in which Israel had the upper hand.  Needless to say that the staunchest Lebanese supporter of Israel, Bashir Gemayel, the Leader of the extremist right wing Lebanese Forces was elected president to the wish of his Israeli friends.

It was as if the Lebanese Civil War was not destructive and tragic enough.  Lebanon looked as fragmented, more helpless and more hopeless than the Arabs were 17 years earlier when they lost the Six-Day War in 1967.

Even though Gemayel was assassinated before he took office, his brother  Amin was elected as president and Ronald Reagan sent pieces of the Sixth Fleet and a few thousand Marines to peace watch. France and Italy sent some forces too. The PLO had already been driven out and moved its base to Tunisia and Arafat left Lebanon for the last time.

What followed the Gemayel’s assassination were the retributional infamous Sabra and Chatila massacres, in which the Lebanese Forces butchers hundreds of Palestinians women and children, who were left defenceless after the fighters were made to leave.

Lebanon seemed in a huge mess, one that it had no chance to get out of.  The future of Lebanon and its sovereignty looked as bleak as that of Palestine and its people. Israel was there to either stay, or to impose a peace deal with Lebanon, a deal that secured its interests and security. In fact, a deal with the Lebanese government was reached on the 17^th of May 1983, but president Amin Gemayel did not ratify it.

No one in Lebanon could see a glimmer of hope in the horizon, but that was to change soon, and in the most dramatic manner.

To Israel and the USA, the plot seemed to have worked. What they did not prepare themselves for, was a Syrian-sponsored resistance group that rose from the ashes of the defeat of 1967, the betrayal  Sadat in 1973, the master plans of Kissinger that left Syria standing alone, and the plucking of the PLO out of Lebanon. 

For before too long, the headquarters of the Israeli operations in Tyre was flattened by a huge explosion killing tens of Israeli troops. Sporadic clashes between local resistance fighters and Israeli occupiers erupted here and there. The resistance gained momentum very rapidly turning the life of Israeli troops in Lebanon into a nightmare. They would walk with their backs to the walls and their fingers on the trigger. They flattened many banana groves and other orchards to prevent fighters from hiding, but nothing was able to stop the surge of resistance.

Then on the 23^rd of October 1983, a triple suicide attack on the US Marines headquarters as well as the French and Italians, killing 241 Marines and tens of French and Italians. This sent them packing and Lebanon was left with Israel to contend with.

It took this resistance group, Hezbollah and its supporters, 18 long years of struggle to finally score a victory that combined Arab state armies were not able to achieve for over five decades.

The potion that was most difficult for Israel to swallow was that they replaced the fragmented relatively ill-equipped unpopular PLO with a highly organized extremely popular formidable army with far-reaching missiles that can, and did penetrate “as far as Haifa and beyond”.

When negotiating with Sadat on Sinai, Israel’s main aim was to isolate Syria, and Sadat, the fool, thought that he was truly negotiating.  Israel and the US kept the Palestinians out of the equation, refused to engage in a comprehensive peace deal, and for every inch of land they returned to Egypt, they scored more and more gains.

The Israelis were never used to being dictated to. They have been taught that they can dictate to the USA itself. After all, they coerced the feeble Carter to go their way in the Camp David negotiations, and made him pledge more and more financial and military aid.

For Israel to give up Arab land for no gain was totally unfathomable. And the South of Lebanon is not cheap real estate. It is rich in a very precious commodity that Israel has dire need for; water. But it had to give it all up and retreat with its tails between its legs. Israel referred to its defeat as a tactical pull-out. It was in fact the very first unconditional defeat and retreat of Israeli troops.

After more than thirty years of extreme duress and living under the mercy of Israel, having their crops burnt, their homes bombed and bulldozed, and their youths sent to jails….after more than thirty years of rolling funerals and displacements, the people of South Lebanon were finally free, and they owed their freedom to their own sacrifices, not to concessions and pleas from superpowers or the UN that would at best have given them empty promises and more and more subjugation.    

That was the story I told my Scottish friend. The epic story had him riveted giving me his full attention. He could not believe that such a gallant victory was reported on Western media with such disdain and inaccuracy.

This is a day I will never forget.