In a country that boasts being a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, a recent decision made by a Syrian court was made in direct violation of the Syrian constitution, which guarantees the right to live to all citizens, male or female, and therefore undermining the position of women, and honour killings in Syrian society.
A Syrian judge acquitted a young man who killed his sister. Due to the fact that the murder was motivated by honour (because the brother argues that his sister fled with her lover), his sentence has reduced. However, he had already spent some time in custody- which counted towards his punishment. Therefore he was free to walk the streets straight away. This is irrespective of the fact that the murder was premeditated- as the brother had bought a razor to kill his sister before travelling to Damascus to commit the crime.
No justice has been brought to the sister- whose killer is now able to walk the streets of Damascus. This is due to an oversight by the judges who gave more merit to the argument of a motivation of honour killings than the cold hard facts of the case.
News on Syria
Friday, November 20, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
Saudi Arabia, Syria call for a unity govt in Lebanon
Some good news for a change. The Saudis and the Syrians seem to be settling their differencesSunday, September 20, 2009
Iraq: Syria - Iraq squabble continues
This is getting messy. RPS writes: the Defense and Security Committee of the Iraqi Parliament is heading for the Security Council to invoke Chapter VII proceedings against Syria. Chapter VII gives the UN the mandate to use force. Iraq is also attempting to initiate an international tribunal similar to the one enforced by Lebanon for the murder of Rafik Hariri.
It is unlikely that Iraq can pull a Chapter VII from the UN even if supported by the US.
Iraq: Syria - Iraq squabble continues
It is unlikely that Iraq can pull a Chapter VII from the UN even if supported by the US.
Iraq: Syria - Iraq squabble continues
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Political Stalemate in Lebanon
On September 10th, Saad Hariri tendered his resignation as Lebanese Prime Minister, citing difficulties in forming a consensus government. Though not unexpected, reactions to the resignation have varied widely. Some see such a dramatic step as potentially ushering in a new round of sectarian violence, similar to that which left over 100 dead in May 2008. Others, notably L’Orient Le Jour view Hariri’s action as purely an act of political showmanship, since his command of a parliamentary majority ensured his will re-appointment by President Michel Suleiman.
Hariri has suffered enormous difficulty in forging a government which satisfies all parties, a problem which he and his supporters blame largely on the intransigence of elements within the pro-Syrian March 8th coalition, particularly Hezbollah and Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement. Hariri has argued that despite making concessions which were unpopular within his own power-base (particularly with the right-wing Kataeb and Lebanese Forces parties), the Hezbollah-FPM have kept imposing new conditions which make the formation of a functioning government impossible. In particular, debate has revolved around the means by which ministerial posts will be designated, with Hariri attempting to compromise on 15 posts for the March 14th alliance (reflecting their Parliamentary majority following the June 7th elections), 10 posts for the March 8th opposition, and 5 selected by the President. Michel Aoun has also proved inflexible in demanding that his son-in-law Gebran Bassil regain his 2008 post as telecommunications minister. Hariri’s clear frustration was shown in his resignation speech when he stated that he would not allow the post of Prime Minister to become a “mail box” which merely accepts the demands of parties as to who is awarded roles in the national cabinet.
Aside from the difficulties which have dogged his short tenure as Prime Minister, Hariri’s resignation had a more proactive purpose. He actively sought to be re-nominated by President Suleiman following the President’s consultation with the leaders of the various Parliamentary blocs, which took place earlier this week. That this is was his objective all along is not in doubt, despite Al-Mostaqbal MP Ammi Houri’s claim in the Daily Star on Saturday 12th that “Hariri has not decided yet if he wants to be re-designated”. On Sunday, Hariri laid down the law, affirming that although in a democracy no-one had to re-nominate him, he would treat those who did not nominate him “as he treated me before my nomination” once he returned to his post. This does not bode well for the cabinet prospects of Mr. Bassil.
Despite apparent political stalemate, there appears to be a general unwillingness on all sides to countenance a return to the violence that last erupted in May 2008. Rhetoric on all sides has veered away from the threat of direct action.
Hezbollah, not usually a party to mince words when developments meet with its disapproval, has delivered a relatively muted statement through its Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem. Its current stance is limited to voicing its concern that any Prime Minister in the immediate future will face the same problems as Hariri, since “mutual concessions” are required to deal with Lebanon’s complex sectarian make-up. He added that Hezbollah would impose four rules for contribution to the formation of a cabinet – Implementation of the “15-10-5” formula, the participation of all opposition parties in any future cabinet, “flexible dialogue and concessions” during the cabinet-forming process, and application of the principle that a parliamentary majority should not necessarily be reflected in a cabinet majority. In other words, the March 14th movement’s success on June 7th should count for very little. What Hezbollah’s actual response would be should Hariri refuse to back down further following a reinstatement is not clear.
Hariri has more explicitly opposed direct action, warning at an iftar dinner on September 12th against politically motivated disruption. The stance of his Christian allies is more forceful, but also eschews actual violence. Following a mass to commemorate the assassination of Bashir Gemayel in 1982, his widow Solange, herself a former Kataeb MP, stated that the “absolute majority of steadfast Lebanese” would not let the country be drawn into a constitutional crisis and accused the opposition of seeking to prevent a national unity cabinet “by force of arms”.
Some hope may be drawn from parties’ apparent unwillingness to engage in the sort of political posturing which could lead to a sudden eruption of violence in the style of May 2008. AUB Political Science professor Karim Maldessi, quoted in the Daily Star, seemed confident that “no one, either in Lebanon or abroad, has an interest in seeing fighting resuming in the streets”.
Despite the apparent wish for calm on all sides, there are a number of factors which, combined with the potentially fractious internal political climate, are potentially causes for concern should a strong, functioning national unity government not be formed soon.
The first of these, as Makdessi points out, is tension between the main players in the region. Saudi Arabia and the United States both back Hariri’s coalition, while Syria and Iran support the March 8th movement. The tension between the four could lead to their indulging in the old game of using Lebanon as a proxy battleground. Saudi Arabia has already been implicated by some in the encouragement and funding of radical Sunni groups in the country as a counterweight to Iran and Syria’s long-established support of Shi’ite Hezbollah and Amal. Such Sunni groups have become increasingly active in Lebanon the past few years; taking unilateral action against Israel, confronting the Lebanese army and attempting to target UNIFIL troops in the South. It is unlikely that they would feel strong enough to challenge Hezbollah directly, but should Sunni feel dissatisfied with the current democratic quagmire then support for these groups may grow, and with a growth of support may come an upsurge in operations.
The other potential cause for worry is Israel. Although Israel’s action since 2006 has been limited to shelling and airstrikes in response to militants’ launch of rockets over the border, the tone of its leaders has made it clear that it is the government of Lebanon, rather than militant groups themselves, who Israel will blame for attacks should Hezbollah be included in any national unity cabinet. Should Israel feel at any point in the near future that it has been pushed too far, then it would be perfectly capable of launching the kind of attacks on major Lebanese cities which may push Lebanon towards further unrest.
Hariri has suffered enormous difficulty in forging a government which satisfies all parties, a problem which he and his supporters blame largely on the intransigence of elements within the pro-Syrian March 8th coalition, particularly Hezbollah and Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement. Hariri has argued that despite making concessions which were unpopular within his own power-base (particularly with the right-wing Kataeb and Lebanese Forces parties), the Hezbollah-FPM have kept imposing new conditions which make the formation of a functioning government impossible. In particular, debate has revolved around the means by which ministerial posts will be designated, with Hariri attempting to compromise on 15 posts for the March 14th alliance (reflecting their Parliamentary majority following the June 7th elections), 10 posts for the March 8th opposition, and 5 selected by the President. Michel Aoun has also proved inflexible in demanding that his son-in-law Gebran Bassil regain his 2008 post as telecommunications minister. Hariri’s clear frustration was shown in his resignation speech when he stated that he would not allow the post of Prime Minister to become a “mail box” which merely accepts the demands of parties as to who is awarded roles in the national cabinet.
Aside from the difficulties which have dogged his short tenure as Prime Minister, Hariri’s resignation had a more proactive purpose. He actively sought to be re-nominated by President Suleiman following the President’s consultation with the leaders of the various Parliamentary blocs, which took place earlier this week. That this is was his objective all along is not in doubt, despite Al-Mostaqbal MP Ammi Houri’s claim in the Daily Star on Saturday 12th that “Hariri has not decided yet if he wants to be re-designated”. On Sunday, Hariri laid down the law, affirming that although in a democracy no-one had to re-nominate him, he would treat those who did not nominate him “as he treated me before my nomination” once he returned to his post. This does not bode well for the cabinet prospects of Mr. Bassil.
Despite apparent political stalemate, there appears to be a general unwillingness on all sides to countenance a return to the violence that last erupted in May 2008. Rhetoric on all sides has veered away from the threat of direct action.
Hezbollah, not usually a party to mince words when developments meet with its disapproval, has delivered a relatively muted statement through its Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem. Its current stance is limited to voicing its concern that any Prime Minister in the immediate future will face the same problems as Hariri, since “mutual concessions” are required to deal with Lebanon’s complex sectarian make-up. He added that Hezbollah would impose four rules for contribution to the formation of a cabinet – Implementation of the “15-10-5” formula, the participation of all opposition parties in any future cabinet, “flexible dialogue and concessions” during the cabinet-forming process, and application of the principle that a parliamentary majority should not necessarily be reflected in a cabinet majority. In other words, the March 14th movement’s success on June 7th should count for very little. What Hezbollah’s actual response would be should Hariri refuse to back down further following a reinstatement is not clear.
Hariri has more explicitly opposed direct action, warning at an iftar dinner on September 12th against politically motivated disruption. The stance of his Christian allies is more forceful, but also eschews actual violence. Following a mass to commemorate the assassination of Bashir Gemayel in 1982, his widow Solange, herself a former Kataeb MP, stated that the “absolute majority of steadfast Lebanese” would not let the country be drawn into a constitutional crisis and accused the opposition of seeking to prevent a national unity cabinet “by force of arms”.
Some hope may be drawn from parties’ apparent unwillingness to engage in the sort of political posturing which could lead to a sudden eruption of violence in the style of May 2008. AUB Political Science professor Karim Maldessi, quoted in the Daily Star, seemed confident that “no one, either in Lebanon or abroad, has an interest in seeing fighting resuming in the streets”.
Despite the apparent wish for calm on all sides, there are a number of factors which, combined with the potentially fractious internal political climate, are potentially causes for concern should a strong, functioning national unity government not be formed soon.
The first of these, as Makdessi points out, is tension between the main players in the region. Saudi Arabia and the United States both back Hariri’s coalition, while Syria and Iran support the March 8th movement. The tension between the four could lead to their indulging in the old game of using Lebanon as a proxy battleground. Saudi Arabia has already been implicated by some in the encouragement and funding of radical Sunni groups in the country as a counterweight to Iran and Syria’s long-established support of Shi’ite Hezbollah and Amal. Such Sunni groups have become increasingly active in Lebanon the past few years; taking unilateral action against Israel, confronting the Lebanese army and attempting to target UNIFIL troops in the South. It is unlikely that they would feel strong enough to challenge Hezbollah directly, but should Sunni feel dissatisfied with the current democratic quagmire then support for these groups may grow, and with a growth of support may come an upsurge in operations.
The other potential cause for worry is Israel. Although Israel’s action since 2006 has been limited to shelling and airstrikes in response to militants’ launch of rockets over the border, the tone of its leaders has made it clear that it is the government of Lebanon, rather than militant groups themselves, who Israel will blame for attacks should Hezbollah be included in any national unity cabinet. Should Israel feel at any point in the near future that it has been pushed too far, then it would be perfectly capable of launching the kind of attacks on major Lebanese cities which may push Lebanon towards further unrest.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Iraq bombings widen rift with Syria
According to the Iraqi government, 90% of the foreign fighters involved in attacks within the country have travelled through or are based in Syria.
It is hard to verify these figures absolutely, but they come as no great surprise. The Iraq-Syria border is relatively porous, with close relations between Sunni tribes based on both sides. Furthermore, the Syrian government is known for its suspicion of its US-backed Iraqi counterpart. Conditions are ideal for any budding cross-border militant group.
Over the past few weeks, events have been reaching a head. Relations between Iraq and Syria have shifted from a cautious detente to full-blooded rhetorical sparring. On Wednesday August 19th, half a dozen ministries in Baghdad, as well as the cabinet office, were struck by combined car bomb and rocket attacks. Close to 100 died and 300 were wounded. Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki blamed Syria, demanding its government hand over the operation’s planners. He supported his accusations with a taped confession by a former Iraqi police officer who purported to have been trained by Syrian intelligence.
Syria, in response, has called the accusation of harbouring terrorists “immoral” and has demanded concrete proof of a Syrian connection. Each country has subsequently withdrawn its diplomatic representation from the other.
Two interesting issues arise from these events. Firstly, aside from a long-standing dislike of Iraq’s government, why does Syria continue to adopt a passive stance towards militants using Syrian soil as a base of operations? Given its past record with domestic fundamentalism, it seems likely that the government would be able to at least drive militants far enough underground to significantly disrupt their activities should it genuinely wish to. That it doesn’t is surprising, considering its recent tentative dialogue with the US.
Set against this apparent reluctance to act, however, it must be remembered that over 1 million Iraqi refugees live in Syria. Ensuring their absolute compliance with Syrian government policy is difficult. Furthermore, the Syrian relationship with Iraq and the US has not solely been characterised by Syrian intransigence. There has been short-sightedness on both sides. In the past, the Syrian government has extended offers of joint security patrols on the Iraqi border to the US; offers which have been declined. In 2005, leading former Baathists were detained by the government and subsequently handed over to the Americans. Little or no credit was awarded for such co-operation. It is perhaps unsurprising that Syria will now respond less than gracefully when it is very publically accused of harbouring terrorists.
The second question is why the exchange on the subject has grown so much more heated in the past few weeks. There are several reasons for this. At the time of the bombing the USA was attempting negotiations with Syria over a reinforcement of security on the Iraqi border, which would facilitate the imminent US withdrawal. Syria, for its part, is eager to lose its long-established pariah status, whilst maintaining face as a nation which stands up to America in the region. Maliki, meanwhile, has seen his previously strong security-based election ticket severely compromised just as his rivals begin to close in for the kill, and must display a bullish front to shore up his credibility.
It remains to be seen how the problem will be resolved. For Syria to take meaningful action in terms of the arrest or expulsion of Iraqi dissidents would be for it to admit that it was harbouring them in the first place. Equally, Maliki cannot back down. This has also left the USA in an awkward position. It cannot invite Syria in from the cold while it appears to back terrorists, and so has extended sanctions. The issue of border security, however, remains unresolved. Iraq’s future stability, should bombings on the pattern of the 19th of August continue, looks far from assured.
It is hard to verify these figures absolutely, but they come as no great surprise. The Iraq-Syria border is relatively porous, with close relations between Sunni tribes based on both sides. Furthermore, the Syrian government is known for its suspicion of its US-backed Iraqi counterpart. Conditions are ideal for any budding cross-border militant group.
Over the past few weeks, events have been reaching a head. Relations between Iraq and Syria have shifted from a cautious detente to full-blooded rhetorical sparring. On Wednesday August 19th, half a dozen ministries in Baghdad, as well as the cabinet office, were struck by combined car bomb and rocket attacks. Close to 100 died and 300 were wounded. Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki blamed Syria, demanding its government hand over the operation’s planners. He supported his accusations with a taped confession by a former Iraqi police officer who purported to have been trained by Syrian intelligence.
Syria, in response, has called the accusation of harbouring terrorists “immoral” and has demanded concrete proof of a Syrian connection. Each country has subsequently withdrawn its diplomatic representation from the other.
Two interesting issues arise from these events. Firstly, aside from a long-standing dislike of Iraq’s government, why does Syria continue to adopt a passive stance towards militants using Syrian soil as a base of operations? Given its past record with domestic fundamentalism, it seems likely that the government would be able to at least drive militants far enough underground to significantly disrupt their activities should it genuinely wish to. That it doesn’t is surprising, considering its recent tentative dialogue with the US.
Set against this apparent reluctance to act, however, it must be remembered that over 1 million Iraqi refugees live in Syria. Ensuring their absolute compliance with Syrian government policy is difficult. Furthermore, the Syrian relationship with Iraq and the US has not solely been characterised by Syrian intransigence. There has been short-sightedness on both sides. In the past, the Syrian government has extended offers of joint security patrols on the Iraqi border to the US; offers which have been declined. In 2005, leading former Baathists were detained by the government and subsequently handed over to the Americans. Little or no credit was awarded for such co-operation. It is perhaps unsurprising that Syria will now respond less than gracefully when it is very publically accused of harbouring terrorists.
The second question is why the exchange on the subject has grown so much more heated in the past few weeks. There are several reasons for this. At the time of the bombing the USA was attempting negotiations with Syria over a reinforcement of security on the Iraqi border, which would facilitate the imminent US withdrawal. Syria, for its part, is eager to lose its long-established pariah status, whilst maintaining face as a nation which stands up to America in the region. Maliki, meanwhile, has seen his previously strong security-based election ticket severely compromised just as his rivals begin to close in for the kill, and must display a bullish front to shore up his credibility.
It remains to be seen how the problem will be resolved. For Syria to take meaningful action in terms of the arrest or expulsion of Iraqi dissidents would be for it to admit that it was harbouring them in the first place. Equally, Maliki cannot back down. This has also left the USA in an awkward position. It cannot invite Syria in from the cold while it appears to back terrorists, and so has extended sanctions. The issue of border security, however, remains unresolved. Iraq’s future stability, should bombings on the pattern of the 19th of August continue, looks far from assured.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Walid Jumblatt - Spectre of Rafik Hariri Indictment “more dangerous than Ein Al-Rummaneh’s bus”
Mr. Jumblatt is widely seen as one of the leading trend-spotters in the rapidly shifting world of Lebanese politics. His ominous statement in this case certainly appears to reflect a growing unease in Lebanon.
The threat of criminal indictments issued by the UN tribunal investigating Rafik Hariri’s death has been hanging over Lebanon’s political arena since 2005, but recent hints in the Lebanese press that action was imminent have raised a storm among the country’s varied political factions. That such a strong response occurred despite the tribunal’s denial of indictments in the near future as “imagination” only proves the potential of the issue as a violently divisive catalyst.
Lebanon's political rivals have reached a rare consensus in that perception of a wrong choice by the tribunal will lead to violence. Hezbollah have recently dismissed a report in Der Spiegel claiming that they were behind Hariri’s death as a “fabrication”, and Hassan Nasrallah has made thinly veiled threats to repeat his movement’s takeover of Beirut in May 2008 on a larger scale should the tribunal’s findings lay the blame at his feet.
On the other side of the coin, Mustafa Alloush, a former legislator close to Saad Hariri, has threatened violence in return should Hezbollah attempt to “cover up” the tribunal’s findings.
Syria, for its part, another favourite culprit for Hariri’s death, waded in last week with a particularly garbled statement in Al-Akhbar newspaper, declaring its intention to force the UN Security Council:
“...not to ignore any fraud operation that has occurred, whether with interrogators who have worked in investigation commissions or figures with political links to the team that has filed a lawsuit and is involved in throwing accusations against Syria”.
Whether it will take any more substantive action is open to debate.
Like the fear of widespread violence before June’s predominantly peaceful elections, it may be that the fear of a definitive announcement by the UN tribunal will actually be less damaging once it is finally made. For the moment however, there is little doubt that tensions on all sides are rising.
The threat of criminal indictments issued by the UN tribunal investigating Rafik Hariri’s death has been hanging over Lebanon’s political arena since 2005, but recent hints in the Lebanese press that action was imminent have raised a storm among the country’s varied political factions. That such a strong response occurred despite the tribunal’s denial of indictments in the near future as “imagination” only proves the potential of the issue as a violently divisive catalyst.
Lebanon's political rivals have reached a rare consensus in that perception of a wrong choice by the tribunal will lead to violence. Hezbollah have recently dismissed a report in Der Spiegel claiming that they were behind Hariri’s death as a “fabrication”, and Hassan Nasrallah has made thinly veiled threats to repeat his movement’s takeover of Beirut in May 2008 on a larger scale should the tribunal’s findings lay the blame at his feet.
On the other side of the coin, Mustafa Alloush, a former legislator close to Saad Hariri, has threatened violence in return should Hezbollah attempt to “cover up” the tribunal’s findings.
Syria, for its part, another favourite culprit for Hariri’s death, waded in last week with a particularly garbled statement in Al-Akhbar newspaper, declaring its intention to force the UN Security Council:
“...not to ignore any fraud operation that has occurred, whether with interrogators who have worked in investigation commissions or figures with political links to the team that has filed a lawsuit and is involved in throwing accusations against Syria”.
Whether it will take any more substantive action is open to debate.
Like the fear of widespread violence before June’s predominantly peaceful elections, it may be that the fear of a definitive announcement by the UN tribunal will actually be less damaging once it is finally made. For the moment however, there is little doubt that tensions on all sides are rising.
Friday, August 28, 2009
"Hizbollah Attacked" in Border Village
According to the Israeli Defence Force’s Youtube channel, footage shot from a watchtower along the border with Lebanon on August 23rd-24th shows Hizbollah operatives being expelled from the village of Mirouahine by an angry crowd. Apparently, the group was attempting to store weapons and ammunition in houses in the village. The village was subsequently left in the hands of the Lebanese army.
The truth is that it’s difficult to see concrete evidence of any participants' identities on the video. If it is true however, then it is an interesting aberration from the norm. The border villages have been considered Hizbollah strongholds since Israel’s withdrawal in 2000, and the group is known for its uncompromising stance on maintaining discipline within its own fiefdom.
The truth is that it’s difficult to see concrete evidence of any participants' identities on the video. If it is true however, then it is an interesting aberration from the norm. The border villages have been considered Hizbollah strongholds since Israel’s withdrawal in 2000, and the group is known for its uncompromising stance on maintaining discipline within its own fiefdom.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Cyber-activism spreads fast in Syria
The Syrians are having the same dramatic problems with the internet explosion that the Iranians had. Young people in Syria are circumventing cyberspace controls to do their own thing. It's becoming a pretty unstoppable phenomena.Monday, July 20, 2009
New US Ambassador
Syria is excited. It gets a new US Ambassador. And it is cock of the walk about the fact that it had to make no diplomatic concessions to get the Ambassador. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem is happy. So happy he's planning a trip to London next week. We all look forward to seeing him. The worse things get with Iran, the more we all want to do to court Syria. Natural really.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Government changes
There is a rumour going round sourced to the US based opposition party, the Reform Party of Syria. They are saying that there is about to be a cabinet reshuffle because the President is annoyed with the Foreign Minister and the Ambassador to Washington because the US has renewed sanctions. The rumour has to be pretty baseless as Syria is on a roll with regard to rapprochment with the US - things are going as well as can be expected and the whole world is keen to see Syria back in the fold.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Issues Raised by Journalists: Jamming ANN
Important issues are raised by the jamming of ANN. Western nations should consider carefully how best to respond to this before taking action.
Issues Raised by Journalists: Jamming ANN
Issues Raised by Journalists: Jamming ANN
Monday, May 04, 2009
The disappearance of Nawar Abboud
Sheikh Mohammad Al-Hajj Hassan, the leader of the Free Shiite Movement and Rolf Ohler, member of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) have met for discussions concerning the Nawar Abboud issue.The first speaker was Sheikh Al-Hajj Hassan who said:
“It has been four months since Syrian citizen Nawar Abboud’s disappearance when he was arrested by the Lebanese Army intelligence in Tripoli on December 24, 2008 and his whereabouts are still unknown. According to the available information, Abboud was possibly delivered over to the Syrian intelligence.
What crime did this man commit to deserve punishment in the form of forced disappearance?”
Mr. Rolf Ohler, member of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) said:
“We strongly condemn the disappearance of the Syrian opposition member Nawar Abboud, of the United National Assembly, and call on the Lebanese authorities to uncover the circumstances of this crime. We have been provided with information by Sheikh Al-Hajj Hassan and others in this regard, and we will submit it to the European Union and international organizations in an attempt to uncover Abboud’s whereabouts, return him to his family and friends, and have the criminals punished.”
“It has been four months since Syrian citizen Nawar Abboud’s disappearance when he was arrested by the Lebanese Army intelligence in Tripoli on December 24, 2008 and his whereabouts are still unknown. According to the available information, Abboud was possibly delivered over to the Syrian intelligence.
What crime did this man commit to deserve punishment in the form of forced disappearance?”
Mr. Rolf Ohler, member of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) said:
“We strongly condemn the disappearance of the Syrian opposition member Nawar Abboud, of the United National Assembly, and call on the Lebanese authorities to uncover the circumstances of this crime. We have been provided with information by Sheikh Al-Hajj Hassan and others in this regard, and we will submit it to the European Union and international organizations in an attempt to uncover Abboud’s whereabouts, return him to his family and friends, and have the criminals punished.”
Sunday, May 03, 2009
There goes Lebanon
Farid Ghadry's Syrian opposition party is grumbling about Syrian interference in the Lebanon election.
Meanwhile:
Others are grumbling about Saudi interference.
At the end of the day the outcome is likely to be a pro-Syrian alliance - and the further empowerment of Hizbollah.
Meanwhile:
Others are grumbling about Saudi interference.
At the end of the day the outcome is likely to be a pro-Syrian alliance - and the further empowerment of Hizbollah.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Ghadry Goes
Farid Ghadry is resigning as President of the US approved Syrian opposition group, The Reform Party of Syria (RPS). The RPS is one of two key external opposition groups, the other (and larger) being Rifat al Assad's "United Nationals' Alliance". There is also a small opposition group under the wing of former deputy premier Ghadam in alliance with elements of the Moslem Brotherhood - but this has been discredited
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Syrian Dissident Killed?
One of the Syrian opposition figures has dissapeared, missing presumed dead, in Tripoli in Northern Lebanon. Human Rights Watch have taken up his cause but he was almost certainly murdered. Still there is always a chance he is still alive. Let's hope. He leaves a pregnant wife and young son whose lives have been threatened as well. Sad world wouldn't you say?
Human Rights Watch says that Nawar Abboud, who worked as an accountant for a Syrian opposition group, was detained in the northern city of Tripoli three months ago and hasn't been heard of since.
Human Rights Watch says that Nawar Abboud, who worked as an accountant for a Syrian opposition group, was detained in the northern city of Tripoli three months ago and hasn't been heard of since.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Syrian Chemical Weapons
Chemical weapons are the latest Syrian project according to this Washington Post article. Which seems unlikely (though possible of course). I thought Syria had signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in any case.
To view article click here
To view article click here
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Who is Robert Malley?
The RPS have sent round a really comprehensive background not on the new Obama foreign policy advisor. He's not as pro-Israel as he's been painted.
Excerpts from John Perazzo's Article "Obama's Road to Damascus"
Washington - Nov. 11, 2008 (RPS Opinion) -- A Harvard-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, Robert Malley is no newcomer to the Obama team. In 2007, Obama selected him as a foreign policy adviser to his campaign. At the time, Malley was (and still is today) the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG), which receives funding from the Open Society Institute of George Soros (who, incidentally, serves on the ICG Executive Committee).In his capacity with ICG, Malley directs a number of analysts who focus their attention most heavily on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the political and military developments in Iraq, and Islamist movements across the Middle East. Prior to joining ICG, Malley served as President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs (1998-2001), and as National Security Adviser Sandy Berger’s Executive Assistant (1996-1998).Robert Malley was raised in France. His lineage is noteworthy. His father, Simon Malley (1923-2006), was a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party. A passionate hater of Israel, the elder Malley was a close friend and confidante of the late PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat; an inveterate critic of “Western imperialism”; a supporter of various revolutionary “liberation movements,” particularly the Palestinian cause; a beneficiary of Soviet funding; and a supporter of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. According to American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky, Simon Malley “participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World [and] .. wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations.”In a July 2001 op-ed which Malley penned for the New York Times, he alleged that Israeli—not Palestinian—inflexibility had caused the previous year’s Camp David peace talks (brokered by Bill Clinton) to fall apart. This was one of several controversial articles Malley has written—some he co-authored with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Arafat—blaming Israel and exonerating Arafat for the failure of the peace process.Malley’s identification of Israel as the cause of the Camp David impasse has been widely embraced by Palestinian and Arab activists around the world, by Holocaust deniers like Norman Finkelstein, and by anti-Israel publications such as Counterpunch. It should be noted that Malley’s account of the Camp David negotiations is entirely inconsistent with the recollections of the key figures who participated in those talks—specifically, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, and then-U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross (Clinton’s Middle East envoy).Malley also has written numerous op-eds urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah (a creature of Iran dedicated to the extermination of the Jews and death to America), and Muqtada al-Sadr (the Shiite terrorist leader in Iraq). In addition, Malley has advised nations around the world to establish relationships with, and to send financial aid to, the Hamas-led Palestinian government in Gaza. In Malley’s calculus, the electoral victory that swept Hamas into power in January 2006 was a manifestation of legitimate Palestinian “anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat’s imprisonment, Israel’s incursions, [and] Western lecturing ..”
Moreover, Malley contends that it is both unreasonable and unrealistic for Israel or Western nations to demand that Syria sever its ties with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Iran. Rather, he suggests that if Israel were to return the Golan Heights (which it captured in the 1967 Six Day War, and again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War—two conflicts sparked by Arab aggression which sought so permanently wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth) to Syrian control, Damascus would be inclined to pursue peace with Israel.Malley has criticized the U.S. for allegedly remaining “on the sidelines” and being a “no-show” in the overall effort to bring peace to the nations of the Middle East. Exhorting the Bush administration to change its policy of refusing to engage diplomatically with terrorists and their sponsoring states, Malley wrote in July 2006: “Today the U.S. does not talk to Iran, Syria, Hamas, the elected Palestinian government or Hezbollah.. The result has been a policy with all the appeal of a moral principle and all the effectiveness of a tired harangue.”This inclination to negotiate with any and all enemies of the U.S. and Israel—an impulse which Malley has outlined clearly and consistently—clearly has had a powerful influence on Barack Obama.It is notable that six months ago the Obama campaign and Malley hastily severed ties with one another after the Times of London reported that Malley had been meeting privately with Hamas leaders on a regular basis—something Obama had publicly pledged never to do. At the time, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt minimized the significance of this monumentally embarrassing revelation, saying: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.”But indeed, within hours after Obama’s election victory, Malley was back as a key player in the president-elect’s team of advisors—on his way to Syria. Mr. Obama, meanwhile, received a most friendly communication from Hamas, congratulating him on his “historic victory.”
Excerpts from John Perazzo's Article "Obama's Road to Damascus"
Washington - Nov. 11, 2008 (RPS Opinion) -- A Harvard-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, Robert Malley is no newcomer to the Obama team. In 2007, Obama selected him as a foreign policy adviser to his campaign. At the time, Malley was (and still is today) the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG), which receives funding from the Open Society Institute of George Soros (who, incidentally, serves on the ICG Executive Committee).In his capacity with ICG, Malley directs a number of analysts who focus their attention most heavily on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the political and military developments in Iraq, and Islamist movements across the Middle East. Prior to joining ICG, Malley served as President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs (1998-2001), and as National Security Adviser Sandy Berger’s Executive Assistant (1996-1998).Robert Malley was raised in France. His lineage is noteworthy. His father, Simon Malley (1923-2006), was a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party. A passionate hater of Israel, the elder Malley was a close friend and confidante of the late PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat; an inveterate critic of “Western imperialism”; a supporter of various revolutionary “liberation movements,” particularly the Palestinian cause; a beneficiary of Soviet funding; and a supporter of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. According to American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky, Simon Malley “participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World [and] .. wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations.”In a July 2001 op-ed which Malley penned for the New York Times, he alleged that Israeli—not Palestinian—inflexibility had caused the previous year’s Camp David peace talks (brokered by Bill Clinton) to fall apart. This was one of several controversial articles Malley has written—some he co-authored with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Arafat—blaming Israel and exonerating Arafat for the failure of the peace process.Malley’s identification of Israel as the cause of the Camp David impasse has been widely embraced by Palestinian and Arab activists around the world, by Holocaust deniers like Norman Finkelstein, and by anti-Israel publications such as Counterpunch. It should be noted that Malley’s account of the Camp David negotiations is entirely inconsistent with the recollections of the key figures who participated in those talks—specifically, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, and then-U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross (Clinton’s Middle East envoy).Malley also has written numerous op-eds urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah (a creature of Iran dedicated to the extermination of the Jews and death to America), and Muqtada al-Sadr (the Shiite terrorist leader in Iraq). In addition, Malley has advised nations around the world to establish relationships with, and to send financial aid to, the Hamas-led Palestinian government in Gaza. In Malley’s calculus, the electoral victory that swept Hamas into power in January 2006 was a manifestation of legitimate Palestinian “anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat’s imprisonment, Israel’s incursions, [and] Western lecturing ..”
Moreover, Malley contends that it is both unreasonable and unrealistic for Israel or Western nations to demand that Syria sever its ties with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Iran. Rather, he suggests that if Israel were to return the Golan Heights (which it captured in the 1967 Six Day War, and again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War—two conflicts sparked by Arab aggression which sought so permanently wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth) to Syrian control, Damascus would be inclined to pursue peace with Israel.Malley has criticized the U.S. for allegedly remaining “on the sidelines” and being a “no-show” in the overall effort to bring peace to the nations of the Middle East. Exhorting the Bush administration to change its policy of refusing to engage diplomatically with terrorists and their sponsoring states, Malley wrote in July 2006: “Today the U.S. does not talk to Iran, Syria, Hamas, the elected Palestinian government or Hezbollah.. The result has been a policy with all the appeal of a moral principle and all the effectiveness of a tired harangue.”This inclination to negotiate with any and all enemies of the U.S. and Israel—an impulse which Malley has outlined clearly and consistently—clearly has had a powerful influence on Barack Obama.It is notable that six months ago the Obama campaign and Malley hastily severed ties with one another after the Times of London reported that Malley had been meeting privately with Hamas leaders on a regular basis—something Obama had publicly pledged never to do. At the time, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt minimized the significance of this monumentally embarrassing revelation, saying: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.”But indeed, within hours after Obama’s election victory, Malley was back as a key player in the president-elect’s team of advisors—on his way to Syria. Mr. Obama, meanwhile, received a most friendly communication from Hamas, congratulating him on his “historic victory.”
Friday, November 07, 2008
Syrian peace?
Walid Muallam has just been in London. His visit coincided with the U.S bombing of the Syrian border village. Whilst talking to the press on that issue he did say that the ball was in the Isaeli court when it came to the Golan Heights problem. Apparently Syria is ready to go ahead tomorrow if negotiations are on the basis of hte '67 borders. Of course Israel has problems of its own getting its act together and heaven knows how Tzipi Livni's bid for power will pan out in the long run. Perhaps Olmert will stay on as caretaker Israeli premier till January and find the courage to do something on the Syrian track in the interim.
Friday, October 10, 2008
More trouble in Damascus
Seems there is more and more trouble brewing in Damascus. To start with the Syrian opposition was blaming the Israelis - which was wierd (see previous posts). Now they are blaming the Syrian government - which is weirder still.
October 9, 2008 //RPS News// – The Al-Arabiya web site reported this morning that a fight erupted in Damascus around noon time today between the Syrian Security Forces and unknown combatants. Al-Arabiya reporter asserted that the engagement happened next to the al-Wasseem Mosque on Al-Yaroom Street.
October 9, 2008 //RPS News// – The Al-Arabiya web site reported this morning that a fight erupted in Damascus around noon time today between the Syrian Security Forces and unknown combatants. Al-Arabiya reporter asserted that the engagement happened next to the al-Wasseem Mosque on Al-Yaroom Street.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Syrian officer involved in Hariri death killed
Israel seems to be trying to distance itself from the Damascus car bombing. Following the oblique accusation in the recent Reform Party of Syria circulated article - the RPS are now circulating this item which links the whole thing to the Hariri death. A bit far fetched perhaps. Their original police implied that Israel did it to get at Syria's nuclear team. They can't have it both ways. What next? They could coved r all their bases and say the Russians did it.
A Syrian intelligence officer who was involved in the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri in February 2005 was killed in the car bomb attack in Syria on September 27, Syrian opposition representative Sheikh Abdullah Hamidi told Israel Radio on Sunday.
A Syrian intelligence officer who was involved in the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri in February 2005 was killed in the car bomb attack in Syria on September 27, Syrian opposition representative Sheikh Abdullah Hamidi told Israel Radio on Sunday.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Israel tacitly blamed for Syrian bomb
Here's a strange thing indeed. The Syrian opposition group, RPS, is suggesting rather obliquely that the Israelis were responsible for the terrible terrorist car bomb in Syria. And their source? The Debka file, an extremist Israel based site rumored to be well connected at the Pentagon. So - obliquely - an Israel group seems to be implying that Israel did this terrible thing just to assassinate someone connected with an alleged nuclear program. Weird indeed! If not borderline obscene. And untrue we trust. Extract from the Debka item below - click for the link:
Our military sources describe rising tension between Syria and Israel in the wake of the car bomb explosion Saturday, Sept. 27, which killed 17 people and injured 14 outside a Syrian security installation at Sidi Kadad on the highway to Damascus airport. The victims were not officially identified. Various Arab sources report that one was a Syrian brigadier who was not named. After the attack, DEBKAfile’s sources raised the possibility that it might have targeted people involved in Iranian/Syrian nuclear activity.
Our military sources describe rising tension between Syria and Israel in the wake of the car bomb explosion Saturday, Sept. 27, which killed 17 people and injured 14 outside a Syrian security installation at Sidi Kadad on the highway to Damascus airport. The victims were not officially identified. Various Arab sources report that one was a Syrian brigadier who was not named. After the attack, DEBKAfile’s sources raised the possibility that it might have targeted people involved in Iranian/Syrian nuclear activity.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Syrian Commandos in Lebanon
The Syrians are becoming active again in Lebanon - especially in Alawite towns and villages. Perhaps that's natural. And certainly Lebanon needs stability - if that's what it takes.Friday, September 12, 2008
Deep Syrian-Saudi Rift
More trouble. Why can't the Syrians and the Saudis get it together? So sad really - and so unnecessary:
Al-Sharq Qatari Newspaper reported today that Syrian Foreign Minister al-Moallem ignored an invitation by his Saudi counterpart Foreign Minister Saud al-Faysal to attend an Iftar dinner in Cairo where the Arab League was meeting for its 130th session.
Al-Sharq Qatari Newspaper reported today that Syrian Foreign Minister al-Moallem ignored an invitation by his Saudi counterpart Foreign Minister Saud al-Faysal to attend an Iftar dinner in Cairo where the Arab League was meeting for its 130th session.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Iran orders changes in Syria?
The rumour is that there's been a major reshufle in Syria's armed forces. The take is that they are getting rid of the pro-Western military and promoting the pro-Iran military. Which shows, I suspect, how little people understand Syria - even the exiled Syrians that have never lived or visited there. Yes, they purge pro-Western people from time to time. They are worried they might be getting subverted for counterinsurgency, either by Dr Rifat or the USA.
Information received by RPS confirms that Iran has, from direct orders of Ayatollah Khameni, influenced the removal of Gen. Ali Mamlook of the State Security Services to be replaced by Gen. Hassan Khalouf. Khalouf has been lobbying with those who have advocated with the policy of peeling away from Iran.
Information received by RPS confirms that Iran has, from direct orders of Ayatollah Khameni, influenced the removal of Gen. Ali Mamlook of the State Security Services to be replaced by Gen. Hassan Khalouf. Khalouf has been lobbying with those who have advocated with the policy of peeling away from Iran.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Goodbye Iran - Hello Russia
Have just left Gaza and am in Tel Aviv where the gossip is extraordinary. They say that Syria has evicted Khalid Mishal of Hamas and sent him to Khartoum. I am not sure at this early stage how credible that report means but if so it would mean - in turn - that the USA is now fully engaged in the Israel-Syria talks.
What is certain is that Syria is moving back towards their old friend Moscow. There is not prosepect - from an Israeli perspective - of peace anywhere else but on the Syrin track. So we all take what we can get. For the moment.
What is certain is that Syria is moving back towards their old friend Moscow. There is not prosepect - from an Israeli perspective - of peace anywhere else but on the Syrin track. So we all take what we can get. For the moment.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Easing up on Syria
French President Nicolas Sarkozy is preparing to go to Damascus on September 3 and 4, after hosting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Paris in July. So it seems that the West is at last easing its stranglehold and beginning to welcome Syria back into the international community of nations. Which all bodes well maybe. Isolating a people and a government has never proved a truly effective policy.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Syria in Lebanon
From Jerusalem - We picked up a Farid Ghadry e-mail complaining about the Syrian exchange of Ambassadors with Lebanon. I know Farid is opposition but sometimes he protests too much. They recognise Lebanon as a seperate country from Syria and he doesn't like it. Heavens the guy will always be unhappy. Meanwhile the question here is can Bashar al Assad do anything to swing Israeli public opinion further towards peace and undermine Olmert's reticence. One idea is that he grant an audience to an Israeli satellite channel. Might work.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Better news on Peace
Again from Jerusalem. Wise council from those in the know here seems to be that all is not lost on the Syria track after all. Bashar Al-Assad has himself acknowledged that what we have so far is talks about talks. And our earlier dire predictions that a Mofaz premiership would destroy the Syrian track may be groundless. His people are saying that he can be pragmatic - even on this. And after all - it may be Leevni in any case.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Syria Peace talks
A note from Jerusalem. The word here is that Israel's Peace with Syria lobby is very concerned about the prospect of Olmert's coming resignation. Olmert has handled the proximity talks with Syria personally - by which we mean through his own office. If Tzipi Leevni wins out in the coming Khadima elections there is a chance the talks will still proceed. If it is Mofaz the talks will be destroyed. Olmert could force things forward before he leaves office. There is already a draft memorandum of understanding on the table which he personally leaked to Maariv newspaper. But leaking it is one thing - announcing it and progressing matters is another and Olmert seems to lack the courage to go for the big gamble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)