Transcript of Article In British Newspaper: "Guardian" Saturday 5th November 2011 by Alastair Crooke.
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/04/syria-iran-great-game )
Syria and Iran: the great game.
Regime change in Syria is a strategic prize that outstrips Libya – which is why Saudi Arabia and the west are playing their part.
This summer a senior Saudi official told John Hannah, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, that from the outset of the upheaval in Syria, the king has believed that regime change would be highly beneficial to Saudi interests: "The king knows that other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria."
This is today's "great game" – losing Syria. And this is how it is played: set up a hurried transitional council as sole representative of the Syrian people, irrespective of whether it has any real legs inside Syria; feed in armed insurgents from neighbouring states; impose sanctions that will hurt the middle classes; mount a media campaign to denigrate any Syrian efforts at reform; try to instigate divisions within the army and the elite; and ultimately President Assad will fall – so its initiators insist.
Europeans, Americans and certain Gulf states may see the Syria "game" as the logical successor to the supposedly successful Libya game in moulding the Arab awakening towards a western cultural paradigm. In terms of regional politics however, Syria is strategically more valuable, and Iran knows this. Iran has said that it will respond to any external intervention in Syria.
It is already no "game", as the many killed by both sides attests to. The radical armed elements being used in Syria as auxiliaries to depose Assad run counter to the prospect of any outcome emerging within the western paradigm. These groups may well have a bloody and very undemocratic agenda of their own. I warned of this danger in connection to Afghanistan in the 80s: some of the Afghan mujahideen had real roots in the community, I suggested, but others posed a severe danger to people. A kindly American politician at the time placed his arm around my shoulder and told me not to worry: these were the people "kicking Soviet ass". We chose to look the other way because kicking the Soviets played well to US domestic needs. Today Europe looks the other way, refusing to consider who Syria's combat-experienced insurgents taking such a toll of Syrian security forces truly are, because losing Assad and confronting Iran plays so well, particularly at a time of domestic difficulty.
Fortunately, the tactics in Syria, in spite of heavy investment, seem to be failing. Most people in the region believe that if Syria is pushed further into civil conflict the result will be sectarian violence in Lebanon, Iraq and more widely too. The notion that such conflict will throw up a stable, let alone western-style, democracy, is fanciful at best, an act of supreme callousness at worst.
The origins of the "lose Assad" operation preceded the Arab awakening: they reach back to Israel's failure in its 2006 war to seriously damage Hezbollah, and the post-conflict US assessment that it was Syria that represented Hezbollah's achilles heel – as the vulnerable conduit linking Hezbollah to Iran. US officials speculated as to what might be done to block this vital corridor, but it was Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia who surprised them by saying that the solution was to harness Islamic forces. The Americans were intrigued, but could not deal with such people. Leave that to me, Bandar retorted. Hannah noted that "Bandar working without reference to US interests is clearly cause for concern. But Bandar working as a partner … against a common Iranian enemy is a major strategic asset." Bandar got the job.
Hypothetical planning, however, only became concrete action this year, with the overthrow of Egypt's President Mubarak. Suddenly Israel seemed vulnerable, and a weakened Syria, mired in troubles, had heightened strategic allure. In parallel, Qatar had stepped to the fore. Azmi Bishara, a pan-Arabist who resigned from the Israeli Knesset and self-exiled to Doha, was according to some local reports involved in a scheme in which al-Jazeera would not just report revolution, but instantiate it for the region – or at least this is what was believed in Doha in the wake of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. Qatar, however, was not merely trying to leverage human suffering into an international intervention, but was also – as in Libya – directly involved as a key operational patron of the opposition.
The next stages were to draw France's President Sarkozy – the arch-promoter of the Benghazi transitional council model that had turned Nato into an instrument of regime change – into the team. Barack Obama followed by helping to persuade Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan – already piqued at Assad – to play the transitional council part on Syria's border, and lend his legitimacy to the "resistance". Both of the latter components, however, are not without challenges from their own security arms, who are sceptical of the efficacy of the transitional council model, and opposed to military intervention. Even Bandar is not without challenges: he has no political umbrella from the king, and others in the family are playing other Islamist cards to different ends. Iran, Iraq and Algeria – and occasionally Egypt – co-operate to frustrate Gulf manoeuvres against Syria at the Arab League. The transitional council model, which in Libya has displayed the weakness of leveraging just one faction as the government-in-waiting, is more starkly defective in Syria. Syria's opposition council, put together by Turkey, France and Qatar, is caught out by the fact that the Syrian security structures have remained near rock solid through seven months – defections have been negligible – and Assad's popular support base are intact. Only external intervention could change that equation, but for the opposition to call for it would be political suicide, and they know it.
The internal opposition gathering in Istanbul demanded a statement refusing external intervention and armed action, but the Syrian national council was announced even before the intra-opposition talks had reached any agreement – such was the hurry on the part of external parties.
The external opposition continues to fudge its stance on external intervention, and with good reason: the internal opposition rejects it. This is the flaw to the model – for the majority in Syria deeply oppose external intervention, fearing civil conflict. Hence Syrians face a long period of externally mounted insurgency, siege and international attrition. Both sides will pay in blood.
But the real danger, as Hannah himself noted, is that the Saudis might "once again fire up the old Sunni jihadist network and point it in the general direction of Shiite Iran", which puts Syria first in line. In fact, that is exactly what is happening, but the west, as before in Afghanistan, prefers not to notice – so long as the drama plays well to western audiences.
As Foreign Affairs reported last month, Saudi and its Gulf allies are firing up the radical Salafists (fundamentalist Sunnis), not only to weaken Iran, but to do what they see is necessary to survive – to disrupt and emasculate the awakenings that threaten absolute monarchism. This is happening in Syria, Libya, Egypt Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.
This Islamically assertive, literalist orientation of Islam may be generally viewed as nonpolitical and pliable, but history is far from comforting. If you tell people often enough that they can be king-makers and throw buckets of money at them, do not be surprised if they metamorphose – yet again – into something very political. It may take some months, but the fruits of this new attempt to use radical forces for western ends will yet again backfire. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, recently warned that the Hillary Clinton-devised response to the Arab awakening, of implanting western paradigms, by force if necessary, into the void of fallen regimes, will be seen as a "cultural war on Islam", and will sow the seeds of a further round of radicalisation.
One of the sad paradoxes is the undercutting of moderate Sunnis, who now find themselves caught between the rock of being seen as a western tool, and the hard place of radical Sunni Salafists waiting for the opportunity to displace them and to dismantle the state. What a strange world: Europe and the US think it is OK to "use" precisely those Islamists (including al-Qaida) who absolutely do not believe in western-style democracy in order to bring it about. But then, why not just look the other way and gain the benefit of the public enjoying Assad's kicking?
Comment On Article By "goldenruleapplies" ..............................
This article by Crooke is rubbish on so many levels, it hardly seems worth mentioning. This ex MI6 30 yr career spy has form see the extract below.
"Remaking the Middle East in Syria's Image." Huffingtonpost, 9th September 2010.
Syria's vision of a New Middle East made its way to Foreign Policy magazine, months after being printed in the Washington Post by the same authors.
The vision echoes what was put out by a Hezbollah friend, former MI6 agent Alistair Crooke. In a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) publication, Crooke argued that Washington should replace its current alliance with the Saudi-Egyptian-Jordanian coalition with another consisting of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Iran-dominated Iraq and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon.
The Middle East might not be changing as fast as Malley, Harling or Crooke suggest. It is Washington, however -- where "unfriendly" countries have finally learned how to lobby the administration to their own advantages -- that has changed.
( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hussain-abdulhussain/remaking-the-middle-east-_b_709060.html )
His Conflicts Forum lobby organization is based in Beirut. Most western ex-government people end up working as paid lobbyists for the Saudi "proud desert kingdom" brigade. Mr Crooke is a lobbyist for the Iran-Syria-Iraq lobby.
I say it is these conflicts of Sunni v Shia, Islam v Secular, Left v Right that has traditionally allowed external forces to encourage elites to internally colonize the Middle East. This time the ordinary people of the region are standing up for their rights. The self serving conflicts have been seen through, by the people who are not stupid.
For more information on Mr Crooke see ....
http://www.ibishblog.com/article/2011/08/01/alastair_crooke_ex_spy_who_stepped_cold_authored_michael_weiss
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Essay-response-How-not-to/
In the spirit of the Gaza youth statement, f**k off Israel, US, Hamas, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran .... It is about REAL PEOPLE, please support the Syrian Democratic Uprising.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
The Egyptian Revolution Is Being Stolen : What is going on ?
In an article in the British Guardian newspaper on Tuesday and BBC Newsnight on Monday, the Novelist Ahdaf Soueif , described the murder of 25 people (310 injured) in Cairo by the army last Sunday. This followed a 1000 strong protest against the attack on a church in southern Egypt. The march included Christians and Muslims. When they reached the State TV building, unidentified armed gangs suddenly appeared and attacked the army, who then had the excuse of a riot to attack the demonstrators.
Ahdaf Soueif stated that although Mubarak (the head of the old regime) has been forced out, the rest of the regime is still in power. Under Mubarak there was proof that the interior ministry was organizing attacks against Christians, in league with minority Muslim fundamentalist Salafist groups.
The storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo on 10th September (following the killing of five Egyptian soldiers by Israel in Sinai) involved an unidentified but disciplined gang of around one hundred, many carrying sledge hammers. This incident gave the interim military government (SCAF) the excuse to reinstate emergency law. Since the revolution in February SACF have been prosecuting civilians in military courts for criticizing their actions.
In August the influential presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei, criticized SCAF for passing an electoral law in consultation with the Muslim Brotherhood, which will ban foreign monitoring of forthcoming elections. He said:
“Refusal of international election monitoring, one of the main seven demands voiced before the revolution for democratic transition (is based) on the erroneous understanding of interference in (the country’s) sovereignty….”
Compared this will Libya, where the NTC explicitly guarantee international monitoring in their Roadmap for democratic transition.
What is going on?
In April the journalist Robert Frisk wrote in an article…. “Field Marshal Tantawi, the head of the Egyptian army, for example, is now running Egypt. Yet he is not only a close friend of America, but a childhood and lifelong friend of Mubarak, who was allowed to whinge the usual ex-dictator’s self-congratulatory excuses on al-Arabia television (‘my reputation, my integrity and my military and political record’) prior to his own questioning – and inevitable emergency entry into hospital. When the latest Tahrir Square crowds also called for Tantawi’s resignation, the field marshal’s mask slipped. He sent his troops to ‘cleanse’ the square.”[ British Newspaper: The Independent “A long Time Coming” 15/4/2011 Robert Fisk]
The Egyptian regime was and is very corrupt, with a wealthy elite controlling extensive business interests, this includes senior army generals. The army is the most powerful and best funded institution in Egypt. Mubarak lost the support of the generals by favoring a rival power base of business cronies. The generals saw an opportunity to get rid of him when ordinary Egyptians rose up in protest against the regime.
The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is the most successful and well established political party in Egypt, who could command around a third of the popular vote. It is a broad movement, with a generally older conservative wing, and a younger progressive wing closer to the demonstrators of Tahrir square.
The army generals have done a deal with the conservative wing of the Muslim Brotherhood to steal the Egyptian revolution. There will be no foreigners to observe the forthcoming rigged elections. Instead the Egyptian Justice Department stuffed with people from the old regime will do the monitoring.
The fundamentalist Salafists with the encouragement of the generals will stir up sectarian trouble with the ten percent of Egyptians who are Coptic Christians. This gives an impression of chaos, to justify martial law at home and especially abroad in Western countries sympathetic to attacks on Christian minorities.
Paramilitary gangs linked to the old regime, will provoke violence at otherwise peaceful demonstrations (ie by attacking the army and storming embassies).
Behind all this is Saudi Arabia. This repressive country, founded in 1936, that has stolen considerable wealth from the Arab people, is desperate to end the Arab Democratic Uprising. They are willing to fund in the short term, the buying of the votes of poor Egyptians (those that are not stolen) with promises of aid if they support the MB. About 30% of Egyptians thanks to Mubarak and others, live below the poverty line.
The Saudis have close links to the MB, when many of their members fled persecution under Nasser. They also directly fund Salafist groups throughout the Middle East, including Egypt.
The ordinary people of the Middle East are being denied the chance to get back on the path of progress, which has been blocked to them by internal colonization backed by foreign interests for over a century. The ordinary people in Western countries are being denied the chance to spread democracy to a key part of the world, when democracy needs to expand or face decline in Western countries. The ending of the Egyptian revolution is a crime against all our humanity.
Ahdaf Soueif stated that although Mubarak (the head of the old regime) has been forced out, the rest of the regime is still in power. Under Mubarak there was proof that the interior ministry was organizing attacks against Christians, in league with minority Muslim fundamentalist Salafist groups.
The storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo on 10th September (following the killing of five Egyptian soldiers by Israel in Sinai) involved an unidentified but disciplined gang of around one hundred, many carrying sledge hammers. This incident gave the interim military government (SCAF) the excuse to reinstate emergency law. Since the revolution in February SACF have been prosecuting civilians in military courts for criticizing their actions.
In August the influential presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei, criticized SCAF for passing an electoral law in consultation with the Muslim Brotherhood, which will ban foreign monitoring of forthcoming elections. He said:
“Refusal of international election monitoring, one of the main seven demands voiced before the revolution for democratic transition (is based) on the erroneous understanding of interference in (the country’s) sovereignty….”
Compared this will Libya, where the NTC explicitly guarantee international monitoring in their Roadmap for democratic transition.
What is going on?
In April the journalist Robert Frisk wrote in an article…. “Field Marshal Tantawi, the head of the Egyptian army, for example, is now running Egypt. Yet he is not only a close friend of America, but a childhood and lifelong friend of Mubarak, who was allowed to whinge the usual ex-dictator’s self-congratulatory excuses on al-Arabia television (‘my reputation, my integrity and my military and political record’) prior to his own questioning – and inevitable emergency entry into hospital. When the latest Tahrir Square crowds also called for Tantawi’s resignation, the field marshal’s mask slipped. He sent his troops to ‘cleanse’ the square.”[ British Newspaper: The Independent “A long Time Coming” 15/4/2011 Robert Fisk]
The Egyptian regime was and is very corrupt, with a wealthy elite controlling extensive business interests, this includes senior army generals. The army is the most powerful and best funded institution in Egypt. Mubarak lost the support of the generals by favoring a rival power base of business cronies. The generals saw an opportunity to get rid of him when ordinary Egyptians rose up in protest against the regime.
The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is the most successful and well established political party in Egypt, who could command around a third of the popular vote. It is a broad movement, with a generally older conservative wing, and a younger progressive wing closer to the demonstrators of Tahrir square.
The army generals have done a deal with the conservative wing of the Muslim Brotherhood to steal the Egyptian revolution. There will be no foreigners to observe the forthcoming rigged elections. Instead the Egyptian Justice Department stuffed with people from the old regime will do the monitoring.
The fundamentalist Salafists with the encouragement of the generals will stir up sectarian trouble with the ten percent of Egyptians who are Coptic Christians. This gives an impression of chaos, to justify martial law at home and especially abroad in Western countries sympathetic to attacks on Christian minorities.
Paramilitary gangs linked to the old regime, will provoke violence at otherwise peaceful demonstrations (ie by attacking the army and storming embassies).
Behind all this is Saudi Arabia. This repressive country, founded in 1936, that has stolen considerable wealth from the Arab people, is desperate to end the Arab Democratic Uprising. They are willing to fund in the short term, the buying of the votes of poor Egyptians (those that are not stolen) with promises of aid if they support the MB. About 30% of Egyptians thanks to Mubarak and others, live below the poverty line.
The Saudis have close links to the MB, when many of their members fled persecution under Nasser. They also directly fund Salafist groups throughout the Middle East, including Egypt.
The ordinary people of the Middle East are being denied the chance to get back on the path of progress, which has been blocked to them by internal colonization backed by foreign interests for over a century. The ordinary people in Western countries are being denied the chance to spread democracy to a key part of the world, when democracy needs to expand or face decline in Western countries. The ending of the Egyptian revolution is a crime against all our humanity.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Mahatma Gandhi Top Quote
"All humanity is one undivided and indivisible family and each one of us is responsible for the misdeeds of all the others. I cannot detach myself from the wickedest soul."
Mahatma Gandhi
Monday, August 22, 2011
Today Tripoli, Next Stop Damascus
Marvelous news from Libya. Abdel Jalil of the Transitional National Council is speaking on Al Jazeera; stating that the New Libya will be a country based on a "moderate" Islamic framework, where all Libyans regardless of religion or ethnicity will be equal, and people from all areas of Libya will live in freedom and respect. This is what the TNC have been saying since the start of the revolution six months ago. Gaddafi's hold on Tripoli has largely fallen apart in a few days, showing that he ruled mainly by fear and bribery. His power is now evaporating, although some will still be connected to him by the stain of their past crimes.
Let us give thanks to God , the courage of mainly ordinary people fighting Gaddafi's mercenary army and the skill of Nato's armed forces (who in this case) have given the Libyan people the military space to shake off the internal colonisation of the Gaddafi family. One citizen soldier said early in this conflict that this was a "revolution of common sense." This summed up for me the madness of the Gaddafi regime, the maturity of politics in the Middle East especially amongst young people and the popular realization that time is running out for a new approach to change in this crucial region.
Now the question is, how many powerful authoritarian regimes outside Libya will want the New Democratic Libya to fail (Iran? Saudi Arabia? Bahrain? Algeria? and even some right wing American and European elites?). Let us therefore pray that God will give the Libyan people the strength of purpose to overcome the obstacles of the near future, when others will be tempted to privately exploit their weaknesses. More importantly pray that God will speak to ordinary people in outside countries that the success of Libya and the Arab Democratic Uprising is in our continuing common interest.
Remember that Iraq was a disaster because the authoritarian regime of Saddam Hussien gave way to sectarian strife. The Sunni versus Shia versus West conflict was fought out in Iraq. This was fueled by Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sunni Fundamentalists in general. On top of this the United States pursued the policies that encouraged a vacuum for the Iraqi civil war to take off.
Next let us pray that Muammar Gaddafi and his sons will appear in the International Criminal Court in the Hague or a similarly constituted tribunal in Libya. This will be right in itself, and the right start for the New Libya.
The next problem is to :
1. Remove Bashir al-Assad from control of Syria. To put at the very heart of the projected "Transitional Council of Syria", the truth that common humanity and a shared believe in the one God, rises many times above smaller differences of Sunni, Shia, Christian and Jew.
2. Prevent the governments of Israel and Iran from derailing the Arab Democratic Uprising (which is not in the interests of either of these countries elites) by genocide in Gaza.
3. Of critical and urgent importance to put pressure on the Egyptian military council, to change the current plan, so that international observers will be present to ensure fairness in the upcoming elections in Egypt in November this year.
If it is right that Gaddafi has gone, then is many times more right that Bashar al-Assad goes. I say as a Christian, but more importantly as a believer in God and his kingdom in this world, “Next Stop Damascus God Willing”.
(see Winning the battle of Libya after Gaddafi.)
Let us give thanks to God , the courage of mainly ordinary people fighting Gaddafi's mercenary army and the skill of Nato's armed forces (who in this case) have given the Libyan people the military space to shake off the internal colonisation of the Gaddafi family. One citizen soldier said early in this conflict that this was a "revolution of common sense." This summed up for me the madness of the Gaddafi regime, the maturity of politics in the Middle East especially amongst young people and the popular realization that time is running out for a new approach to change in this crucial region.
Now the question is, how many powerful authoritarian regimes outside Libya will want the New Democratic Libya to fail (Iran? Saudi Arabia? Bahrain? Algeria? and even some right wing American and European elites?). Let us therefore pray that God will give the Libyan people the strength of purpose to overcome the obstacles of the near future, when others will be tempted to privately exploit their weaknesses. More importantly pray that God will speak to ordinary people in outside countries that the success of Libya and the Arab Democratic Uprising is in our continuing common interest.
Remember that Iraq was a disaster because the authoritarian regime of Saddam Hussien gave way to sectarian strife. The Sunni versus Shia versus West conflict was fought out in Iraq. This was fueled by Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sunni Fundamentalists in general. On top of this the United States pursued the policies that encouraged a vacuum for the Iraqi civil war to take off.
Next let us pray that Muammar Gaddafi and his sons will appear in the International Criminal Court in the Hague or a similarly constituted tribunal in Libya. This will be right in itself, and the right start for the New Libya.
The next problem is to :
1. Remove Bashir al-Assad from control of Syria. To put at the very heart of the projected "Transitional Council of Syria", the truth that common humanity and a shared believe in the one God, rises many times above smaller differences of Sunni, Shia, Christian and Jew.
2. Prevent the governments of Israel and Iran from derailing the Arab Democratic Uprising (which is not in the interests of either of these countries elites) by genocide in Gaza.
3. Of critical and urgent importance to put pressure on the Egyptian military council, to change the current plan, so that international observers will be present to ensure fairness in the upcoming elections in Egypt in November this year.
If it is right that Gaddafi has gone, then is many times more right that Bashar al-Assad goes. I say as a Christian, but more importantly as a believer in God and his kingdom in this world, “Next Stop Damascus God Willing”.
(see Winning the battle of Libya after Gaddafi.)
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Short history of Syria, Chapter 1: Until 1946.
The essential prerequisite to civilization is agriculture. This was invented in Syria around 10,000 BC. In Roman times Antioch (1938 annexed into Southern Turkey) was the capital of Syria, and was one of the largest cities in the ancient world. Later Saint Paul after his conversion on the road to Damascus, became an important figure in the early Christian Church based in Antioch. With the rise of Islam in the 7th Century Damascus became the capital of the mighty Umayyad Empire, that stretched from what is now Spain to Pakistan. This lasted until the 10th century when Syria was taken over by the Islamic Abbasid dynasty based in Baghdad. Then the Christian Byzantine Empire, then the Crusaders and by the 13th Century it was on the western edge of the Mongol Empire. Then from the 16th to the 20th centuries Syria became part of the huge Turkish Ottoman Empire.
A map is needed to understand what has happened to Ottoman Syria since the end of the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Syria was an area bordered to the west by the Mediterranean and to the east the Syrian Desert (a continuation northwards of the Arabian Desert). It ended in the south with the Sinai desert and the Red Sea, and in the north with the slopes of the Tauras Mountains. The fertile areas of this region are shown in green above. This area forms the western arm of the "Fertile Crescent". The eastern arm "Mesopotamia" follows the Euphrates and Tigris rivers as they flow south east from the Tauras Mountains to the Persian Gulf.
Britain and France cheated the Arabs out of independence after the First World War, with the creation by the League of Nations of the British and French Mandates. King Faisal's brief reign in Syria (1918–1920) was ended by the French deposing him. He had wanted to unite Syria and Mesopotamia into one nation, and bridge the divisions between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
Control of Southern Syria (Palestine and Transjordon) was given to the British. After the Second World War this area became Israel and Jordon. The map above shows the Israeli Occupied Territories as part of Israel (going north to south .... Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza) because unfortunately the chance of anyone forcing Israel to give any of them up is about nil. It should be noted that water supply is a key strategic asset in this semi arid region, and not sharing this resource fairly from the Golan Heights, Jordan River and the aquifers of the West Bank are seen by the Israeli establishment as essential.
In addition the British were given control of the Ottoman Mesopotamian provinces (now modern day Iraq). Kuwait (a semi independent emirate on Iraq's Persian Gulf coastline) had been under British protection since 1899. In the late nineteenth century the Ottomans were attempting to consolidate the outer reaches of their Empire, which threatened British interests and the autonomy of local rulers. The deposed King Faisal was installed by the British as King of Iraq in 1921, although they kept effective control. The King had enough authority among the diverse tribes of Iraq to help keep control, while still being vulnerable enough to be dependent [the classic definition of a good proxy colonial ruler or "satrap"]. The British also sowed the seeds of tragedy after independence by encouraging Sunnis to become the officer class of the new Iraqi army they formed. It should be noted that Faisal and his descendants failed to rule Iraq effectively, due to their feudal beliefs leading to a failure to distribute wealth to the majority of the poverty stricken population.
From 1920 France ruled the Northern part of Syria. They controlled their area by favoring minorities over the majority Sunni population. The country was divided into a number of statelets, such that in many cases minorities gained more local autonomy. After the Second world War this area became modern day "Syria" and "Lebanon".
The country of "Lebanon" (like the other fragments of Ottoman Syria) was created by foreign interests. In 1860 the French under Napolean III had already intervened in Ottoman Syria when fighting broke out between Shia Druzes and Catholic Maronites, resulting in a very large massacre of Maronites. The Sultan was forced to change the administration of the area and provide an enclave "Mount Lebanon" for the Maronites. In 1920 France created the Statelet of "Greater Lebanon" by expanding on the enclave, which eventually became modern day "Lebanon". This new state incorporated many Muslims and Orthodox Christians, creating the tensions which together with external influences from the Israel-Palestine conflict lead to the disastrous 1975-1990 civil war.
In modern "Syria" the Aliwi are now a powerful minority, from which has come the current ruling Assad dynasty. Before the French Mandate they were seen as heretics and often discriminated against, by the Sunni majority and their religious leaders. The Aliwite promotion of the fourth caliph Ali into a deity, went beyond mainstream Shia Islam, into something that contradicted the orthodox Islamic idea that Mohammed was the “last” messenger from God. [Personally I do not hold with any Jewish, Christian or Islamic religious ideas that seek to limit God to how many messengers, prophets, saviors etc…. he can send to show us the way. We should only be interested in knowing and following the way.]
The Ismaili Shia sect and it’s esoteric offshoot the Druzes were also discriminated against, but the Alawis were singled out because of their perceived total lack of orthodoxy and their obsessive secrecy which encouraged the creation of myths about them. I find it difficult not to see the comments of previous writers on the Alawi and their religious believes, as being motivated mainly by prejudice and rumour rather than truth. It should also be noted that since the French Mandate and particularly since the1970s the religious position of the Aliwites has moved significantly towards mainstream Shia Islam.
The French created the “State of Latakia” for the Alawi in July 1922. This statelet was then granted low taxation and a generous French subsidy. In return Alawites formed about half of the French controlled colonial “Troupes Spéciales du Levant” army units , as well as serving in the colonial police. Nearly all Alawites lived in the countryside, and they were used by the French to control uprisings and strikes by Sunnis in the cities.
It is true in 1921 that the Alawis under the leadership of Salih al-‘Ali did revolt against the French. This stopped as soon as the French gave them autonomy in their own statelet, and from then on they supported the continuation of French colonialism. In truth it is difficult to blame them given their previous conditions.
The French continued the process of division of "Ottoman Syria" started with the creation of French and British Mandates. The French Mandate was further divided into a number of "statelets". This created new minorities within these statelets, which encouraged sectarian strife. Obviously colonial powers need to dominate colonies by encouraging divisions between indigenous groups, which in theory prevents them making common cause against the colonialists. This also creates a number of local elites with limited powers, who can be held responsible for disobedience of the people in their areas, and if necessary threatened with replacement.
Having created this corrupt colonial system the French, also sought to then improve Syrian society by weakening the power of feudalism. Clearly a noble aim in other circumstances. The humiliation of the Druze nobility backfired with a revolt in 1925 in the "Jabal Druze" statelet led by Sultan Pasha el Atrash. The Syrians overcame sectarian differences, and the revolt spread to many other statelets. After many victories against the French, they sent in thousands of colonial troops from Morocco and Senegal. Modern weapons eventually overcame the less well equipped rebels.
Even after the rebellion was crushed the French had the common sense to realize they had underestimated their Syrian subjects, and the harsh tactics of the early years were softened. On 27th September 1941 Syria was granted token independence. However the French were reluctant to leave. On 29th May 1945 they bombed Damascus from the air, and tried to arrest its new democratically elected leaders. Only pressure from Syrian Nationalists and the British lead to the last French troops leaving on April 17th 1946.
A map is needed to understand what has happened to Ottoman Syria since the end of the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Syria was an area bordered to the west by the Mediterranean and to the east the Syrian Desert (a continuation northwards of the Arabian Desert). It ended in the south with the Sinai desert and the Red Sea, and in the north with the slopes of the Tauras Mountains. The fertile areas of this region are shown in green above. This area forms the western arm of the "Fertile Crescent". The eastern arm "Mesopotamia" follows the Euphrates and Tigris rivers as they flow south east from the Tauras Mountains to the Persian Gulf.
Britain and France cheated the Arabs out of independence after the First World War, with the creation by the League of Nations of the British and French Mandates. King Faisal's brief reign in Syria (1918–1920) was ended by the French deposing him. He had wanted to unite Syria and Mesopotamia into one nation, and bridge the divisions between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
Control of Southern Syria (Palestine and Transjordon) was given to the British. After the Second World War this area became Israel and Jordon. The map above shows the Israeli Occupied Territories as part of Israel (going north to south .... Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza) because unfortunately the chance of anyone forcing Israel to give any of them up is about nil. It should be noted that water supply is a key strategic asset in this semi arid region, and not sharing this resource fairly from the Golan Heights, Jordan River and the aquifers of the West Bank are seen by the Israeli establishment as essential.
In addition the British were given control of the Ottoman Mesopotamian provinces (now modern day Iraq). Kuwait (a semi independent emirate on Iraq's Persian Gulf coastline) had been under British protection since 1899. In the late nineteenth century the Ottomans were attempting to consolidate the outer reaches of their Empire, which threatened British interests and the autonomy of local rulers. The deposed King Faisal was installed by the British as King of Iraq in 1921, although they kept effective control. The King had enough authority among the diverse tribes of Iraq to help keep control, while still being vulnerable enough to be dependent [the classic definition of a good proxy colonial ruler or "satrap"]. The British also sowed the seeds of tragedy after independence by encouraging Sunnis to become the officer class of the new Iraqi army they formed. It should be noted that Faisal and his descendants failed to rule Iraq effectively, due to their feudal beliefs leading to a failure to distribute wealth to the majority of the poverty stricken population.
From 1920 France ruled the Northern part of Syria. They controlled their area by favoring minorities over the majority Sunni population. The country was divided into a number of statelets, such that in many cases minorities gained more local autonomy. After the Second world War this area became modern day "Syria" and "Lebanon".
The country of "Lebanon" (like the other fragments of Ottoman Syria) was created by foreign interests. In 1860 the French under Napolean III had already intervened in Ottoman Syria when fighting broke out between Shia Druzes and Catholic Maronites, resulting in a very large massacre of Maronites. The Sultan was forced to change the administration of the area and provide an enclave "Mount Lebanon" for the Maronites. In 1920 France created the Statelet of "Greater Lebanon" by expanding on the enclave, which eventually became modern day "Lebanon". This new state incorporated many Muslims and Orthodox Christians, creating the tensions which together with external influences from the Israel-Palestine conflict lead to the disastrous 1975-1990 civil war.
In modern "Syria" the Aliwi are now a powerful minority, from which has come the current ruling Assad dynasty. Before the French Mandate they were seen as heretics and often discriminated against, by the Sunni majority and their religious leaders. The Aliwite promotion of the fourth caliph Ali into a deity, went beyond mainstream Shia Islam, into something that contradicted the orthodox Islamic idea that Mohammed was the “last” messenger from God. [Personally I do not hold with any Jewish, Christian or Islamic religious ideas that seek to limit God to how many messengers, prophets, saviors etc…. he can send to show us the way. We should only be interested in knowing and following the way.]
The Ismaili Shia sect and it’s esoteric offshoot the Druzes were also discriminated against, but the Alawis were singled out because of their perceived total lack of orthodoxy and their obsessive secrecy which encouraged the creation of myths about them. I find it difficult not to see the comments of previous writers on the Alawi and their religious believes, as being motivated mainly by prejudice and rumour rather than truth. It should also be noted that since the French Mandate and particularly since the1970s the religious position of the Aliwites has moved significantly towards mainstream Shia Islam.
The French created the “State of Latakia” for the Alawi in July 1922. This statelet was then granted low taxation and a generous French subsidy. In return Alawites formed about half of the French controlled colonial “Troupes Spéciales du Levant” army units , as well as serving in the colonial police. Nearly all Alawites lived in the countryside, and they were used by the French to control uprisings and strikes by Sunnis in the cities.
It is true in 1921 that the Alawis under the leadership of Salih al-‘Ali did revolt against the French. This stopped as soon as the French gave them autonomy in their own statelet, and from then on they supported the continuation of French colonialism. In truth it is difficult to blame them given their previous conditions.
The French continued the process of division of "Ottoman Syria" started with the creation of French and British Mandates. The French Mandate was further divided into a number of "statelets". This created new minorities within these statelets, which encouraged sectarian strife. Obviously colonial powers need to dominate colonies by encouraging divisions between indigenous groups, which in theory prevents them making common cause against the colonialists. This also creates a number of local elites with limited powers, who can be held responsible for disobedience of the people in their areas, and if necessary threatened with replacement.
Having created this corrupt colonial system the French, also sought to then improve Syrian society by weakening the power of feudalism. Clearly a noble aim in other circumstances. The humiliation of the Druze nobility backfired with a revolt in 1925 in the "Jabal Druze" statelet led by Sultan Pasha el Atrash. The Syrians overcame sectarian differences, and the revolt spread to many other statelets. After many victories against the French, they sent in thousands of colonial troops from Morocco and Senegal. Modern weapons eventually overcame the less well equipped rebels.
Even after the rebellion was crushed the French had the common sense to realize they had underestimated their Syrian subjects, and the harsh tactics of the early years were softened. On 27th September 1941 Syria was granted token independence. However the French were reluctant to leave. On 29th May 1945 they bombed Damascus from the air, and tried to arrest its new democratically elected leaders. Only pressure from Syrian Nationalists and the British lead to the last French troops leaving on April 17th 1946.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Anders Breivik, Oslo, Utoeya and Far Right Christian Fundamentalism.
Aljazeera was yesterday interviewing a security export from London, who said the terrorist atrocities in Norway were almost certainly the work of Islamists. He claimed they had targeted Norway partly because security there was comparatively lax. It has since emerged that the bombing in Oslo and the mass shooting on the island of Utoeya were the work of a 32 year old far right Christian fundamentalist Anders Behring Breivik. We do not know at the moment whose his accomplices were.
Today Professor Paul Rogers (Peace Studies, Bradford University) on the BBC was claiming that Breivik was a political freak with no popular support. Later it emerged that Breivik had posted many comments of forums praising Geert Wilders. I hope Professor Rogers intention was to calm public fear, as he is wrong.
Geert Wilders ironically named Dutch "Party For Freedom" won 15.5% in parliamentary elections in 2010. The equally right wing Islamophobic "Freedom Party of Austria" won 17.5% of the vote in 2008 parliamentary elections. In Sweden the far right wing and certainly Islamophobic "Swedish Democrats" have broken into national politics with 5.7% of the votes in 2010. Rather than Breivik being an isolated incident he is on the rising edge of a dark political tide, which is set to expand rapidly as economic stagnation grips Europe.
Breivik’s Christian fundamentalism is also far from unique. How can a grown man walk around an island shooting unarmed teenagers and not feel deep shame? How can he believe that Jesus Christ could possibly approve of car bombs on crowded city streets?
A sarcastic joke defines a Christian fundamentalist as an evangelical who is angry. There is some truth to this. Evangelicals believe in the absolute truth of every word of the Bible (inerrancy in the jargon). This standpoint allows the human inspired content of the Bible to dilute the content inspired by God. In order to claim to be taking every word literally an artificial balancing act of interpretation is required, which has the result of allowing the human content of the Bible to diminish the divine view of God it contains. Normally enough of the good content survives to temper the temptation to go too far with the bad. Except in anger, hence the barb in the joke. How many evangelicals are there? Therefore how many people have been converted to Breivik's extreme religious views?
If you think I am being unfair to evangelicals, then I should also say that liberal Christianity seems to lack positive strong beliefs. As if they are following the obsession with "good character" that evangelicals promote, but simply reacting to the right wing version with a left wing version. It should also be said that the same criticism could be made of Islamic and Jewish fundamentalism.
Go beyond character, we are out to change the world with prayer and action. We are certain to fail, but we are going to try, because God belongs to all and everything.
Let us pray for Anders Breivik to see the absolutely terrible mistake he has made, and put all his energy for the rest of his life into trying to refute what he did yesterday and the false ideas that lead him there.
Today Professor Paul Rogers (Peace Studies, Bradford University) on the BBC was claiming that Breivik was a political freak with no popular support. Later it emerged that Breivik had posted many comments of forums praising Geert Wilders. I hope Professor Rogers intention was to calm public fear, as he is wrong.
Geert Wilders ironically named Dutch "Party For Freedom" won 15.5% in parliamentary elections in 2010. The equally right wing Islamophobic "Freedom Party of Austria" won 17.5% of the vote in 2008 parliamentary elections. In Sweden the far right wing and certainly Islamophobic "Swedish Democrats" have broken into national politics with 5.7% of the votes in 2010. Rather than Breivik being an isolated incident he is on the rising edge of a dark political tide, which is set to expand rapidly as economic stagnation grips Europe.
Breivik’s Christian fundamentalism is also far from unique. How can a grown man walk around an island shooting unarmed teenagers and not feel deep shame? How can he believe that Jesus Christ could possibly approve of car bombs on crowded city streets?
A sarcastic joke defines a Christian fundamentalist as an evangelical who is angry. There is some truth to this. Evangelicals believe in the absolute truth of every word of the Bible (inerrancy in the jargon). This standpoint allows the human inspired content of the Bible to dilute the content inspired by God. In order to claim to be taking every word literally an artificial balancing act of interpretation is required, which has the result of allowing the human content of the Bible to diminish the divine view of God it contains. Normally enough of the good content survives to temper the temptation to go too far with the bad. Except in anger, hence the barb in the joke. How many evangelicals are there? Therefore how many people have been converted to Breivik's extreme religious views?
If you think I am being unfair to evangelicals, then I should also say that liberal Christianity seems to lack positive strong beliefs. As if they are following the obsession with "good character" that evangelicals promote, but simply reacting to the right wing version with a left wing version. It should also be said that the same criticism could be made of Islamic and Jewish fundamentalism.
Go beyond character, we are out to change the world with prayer and action. We are certain to fail, but we are going to try, because God belongs to all and everything.
Let us pray for Anders Breivik to see the absolutely terrible mistake he has made, and put all his energy for the rest of his life into trying to refute what he did yesterday and the false ideas that lead him there.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Justice, Respect and Dignity .... Israel Plus Palestine = Hope.
I imagine Alice Walker, well known American Activist and Novelist never did get to Gaza this year on the freedom flotilla. Today the last surviving small boat "Dignite al-Karama" (dignity in French and Arabic) was forced to sail to the Israeli port of Ashdod. The rest of the flotilla have been prevented by sabotage, or diplomatic pressure on Greece (economy in crisis) and Turkey (struggling with regime change in neighboring Syria). This at least prevents the violence of last year when nine activists were killed ( I should probably say murdered ) by Israeli soldiers on the "Mavi Marmara".
In Alice Walker's article in the British "Guardian" Newspaper called "This is why I sail" she explains the reasons for her proposed voyage ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/25/alice-walker-gaza-freedom-flotilla ). One of these is Melvyn Roseman Leventhal, her ex-husband's, answer to why he had become involved with the civil rights struggle in sixties America :
" I thought he might say it was the speeches, the marches, the example of Martin Luther King Jr, or of others in the movement who exhibited impactful courage and grace. But no. Thinking back, he recounted an episode from his childhood that led him, inevitably to our struggle.
He was a little boy on his way home from yeshiva, the Jewish school he attended after school let out. His mother a bookkeeper, was still at work; he was alone. He was frequently harassed by older boys from regular school, and one day two of these boys snatched his yarmulke (skull cap), and, taunting him, ran off with it, eventually throwing it over a fence.
Two black boys appeared, saw his tears, assessed the situation, and took off after the boys who had taken his yarmulke. Chasing the boys down and catching them, they made them climb the fence, retrieve and dust off the yarmulke, and place it respectfully back on his head."
She then goes on to say "It is justice and respect that I want the world to dust off and put - without delay, and with tenderness - back on the head of the Palestinian child."
The claim of the Zionist propagandists is that Palestinians have the rest of the Arab world to move to. They are fond of the map with the sea of the Arab world set against the small island of Israel. In reality this Arab world is impoverished, deliberately fragmented by foreign powers, (until recently) almost entirely ruled by dictators propped up by powerful foreign governments and even in it's geography largely inhospitable and arid. The propagandists retort falsely that it is the "evil" religion of Islam that is responsible, often claiming that fragmentation and dictatorship is the only way to constrain it. There has even been the absurd notion that Arab backwardness had made the land arid and infertile. Really this is racism. The experience of the Palestinian refugees is that often there has been nowhere else to go. The struggle for freedom for Palestine has been going on for nearly 90 years since the 1917 Balfour agreement.
We pray that one day a Jewish Israeli, a person with the rare gift of inspiring humanity, will look with fresh eyes on the experience of the Jewish people, and say "I am a Palestinian".
In Alice Walker's article in the British "Guardian" Newspaper called "This is why I sail" she explains the reasons for her proposed voyage ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/25/alice-walker-gaza-freedom-flotilla ). One of these is Melvyn Roseman Leventhal, her ex-husband's, answer to why he had become involved with the civil rights struggle in sixties America :
" I thought he might say it was the speeches, the marches, the example of Martin Luther King Jr, or of others in the movement who exhibited impactful courage and grace. But no. Thinking back, he recounted an episode from his childhood that led him, inevitably to our struggle.
He was a little boy on his way home from yeshiva, the Jewish school he attended after school let out. His mother a bookkeeper, was still at work; he was alone. He was frequently harassed by older boys from regular school, and one day two of these boys snatched his yarmulke (skull cap), and, taunting him, ran off with it, eventually throwing it over a fence.
Two black boys appeared, saw his tears, assessed the situation, and took off after the boys who had taken his yarmulke. Chasing the boys down and catching them, they made them climb the fence, retrieve and dust off the yarmulke, and place it respectfully back on his head."
She then goes on to say "It is justice and respect that I want the world to dust off and put - without delay, and with tenderness - back on the head of the Palestinian child."
The claim of the Zionist propagandists is that Palestinians have the rest of the Arab world to move to. They are fond of the map with the sea of the Arab world set against the small island of Israel. In reality this Arab world is impoverished, deliberately fragmented by foreign powers, (until recently) almost entirely ruled by dictators propped up by powerful foreign governments and even in it's geography largely inhospitable and arid. The propagandists retort falsely that it is the "evil" religion of Islam that is responsible, often claiming that fragmentation and dictatorship is the only way to constrain it. There has even been the absurd notion that Arab backwardness had made the land arid and infertile. Really this is racism. The experience of the Palestinian refugees is that often there has been nowhere else to go. The struggle for freedom for Palestine has been going on for nearly 90 years since the 1917 Balfour agreement.
We pray that one day a Jewish Israeli, a person with the rare gift of inspiring humanity, will look with fresh eyes on the experience of the Jewish people, and say "I am a Palestinian".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)