Posted on

The Shadow of 9/11 Falls On Syria

www.newmatilda.com/2013/09/11/shadow-911-falls-syria

Published on New Matilda, 11 Sept 2013

“We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them … may God grant us wisdom.”

With this prayer, US President George W. Bush vowed revenge [6] against Al Qaeda soon after the World Trade Centre attacks of 11 September 2001. “We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest,” he said. “And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.”

In his speech today on the eve of the September 11 anniversary, Obama was at pains to distance himself from Al Qaeda.

But his description of the Syrian government as “the forces of tyranny and extremism” could have been his predecessor’s description of Al Qaeda 12 years ago.

Obama declared that “Al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing”. He will ask Congress to postpone a vote authorising violence, saying “it is beyond our means to right every wrong … America is not the world’s policeman.” However, a “pinprick strike” could compound the chaos and embolden Al Qaeda who would welcome “allies” firing from the sky. He fails to urge “those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos” of the beheadings of his fellow Christians in Syria, now an endangered species, and the demolition of sacred churches that mark the history of Christianity.

The US will give time and space for a Russian-led diplomatic solution to the issue of chemical weapons. Despite Obama’s claims that “my administration tried diplomacy …and negotiations”, he fails to cite a single example, siding instead with the rhetoric of the rebels that we will never negotiate with a dictator.

But is Obama, like Bush, really trying to “starve” the terrorists, who presumably feed on chaos? Many would prefer to forget about Bush’s statements given the ironic alliances made by the US. Earlier this year, Obama pledged $250 million of “non-lethal aid” to the Free Syrian Army, a default ally of terrorist armies in “the opposition” affiliated with Al Qaeda. Contrary to Obama’s repeated claims, this is far from a “civil war”.

One opposition group, the Al Qaeda-linked “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”, was accused of assassinating a Free Syrian Army commander in July. The “Islamic Front” has vowed to impose Sharia law in Syria [10]. “Jabhat al Nusra” has vowed allegiance to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Given the war logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, intelligence and arms are shared and flow freely among these allies. This means that US aid may have easily fallen into the hands of Al Qaeda, the sworn enemy of President Bush, still invoked as a reason that intervention in Syria is called for. Why didn’t the US align with the Syrian government years ago in the face of a common enemy: the Wahabi Jihadist ideolology.

Obama’s rhetoric today marks a significant change to Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement at the G20: “This is not the time to be spectators to a slaughter… Neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence.”

If the US has principles to uphold, but also recognises it can’t militarily police the whole world, then some interesting questions arise: Kerry alleges that his “significant body of open source intelligence” revealed that “for three days before the attack, the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area, making preparations.” Why wasn’t the information used to intervene then, or to warn Syrian civilians and prevent over 1400 fatalities? Why was such intelligence not immediately given to the UN weapons inspection team who were on the ground exactly three days before the war crime?

Moreover, if the US leaders are “serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use”, where was their “international obligation” when over 1400 Gazans were killed under Operation Cast Lead in January 2009? Obama did not draw an unequivocal red line that “we will not tolerate their use” against “our ally Israel” because it has his “unshakeable support”. According to Amnesty International, Israel “indiscriminately fired white phosphorous over densely populated residential areas.” These unlawful US-imported chemical weapons burn flesh to the bone. Nonetheless US leaders were content to remain spectators to that particular slaughter.

Whether in Gaza or Ghouta, this selective concern makes a cruel mockery of the principles espoused after the World Trade Centre attacks.

Twelve years on, Bush’s prayer, “God grant us wisdom”, has been challenged by Pope Francis. While Obama was still insisting that a “limited” attack on Syria was “the right thing to do”, Pope Francis said that “never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake … war begets war.”

What an irony! While President Obama in St Petersburg was making the moral case for a military solution in Syria, Pope Francis in St Peter’s Square called for a “day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria” last Saturday. The Pope’s call was heeded and echoed by leaders of many faiths, believing that God alone grants them wisdom.

The last papal day of prayer was declared by Pope John Paul II in the wake of the World Trade Centre attacks 12 years ago. He invited religious leaders to Assisi to pray for “true peace … religion must never become a cause of conflict, hatred and violence.”

Posted on

Prisoner X exposes double standards


http://bit.ly/132TaN7

ON LINE opinion – Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate
Posted Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Prisoner X exposes double standards

Imagine if Prisoner X was an Australian dual citizen who was recruited and incarcerated by the Syrian Mukhabarat rather than the Israeli Mossad. Would our Zionist leaders remain silent as they are now, or demand the loyalty of Syrian dual citizens? Should those driven by their ideology be labeled as fanatical terrorists or noble nationalists, or should this depend on whether they are Arabs or Jews?

Local Arab leaders are no strangers to having their loyalty questioned after two ‘Gulf Wars’, even if they are Australian rather than dual citizens.

I have publicly urged the Australian government to interrogate Australian citizens who visit the war zones of Syria, especially those who claim to be on a humanitarian mission but are then posted and boasted on the social boast as military martyrs sacrificing for their ‘brothers in arms’. Any military, para-military or intelligence service outside Australian defense and security forces should be deemed suspicious.

This does not mean that we should treat such citizens like the US Military Commission treated David Hicks who was charged with ‘providing material support for terrorism’. But it does mean that we cannot turn a blind eye to the human traffic and ‘rites of passage’ between Australia and Israel. Prisoner X now has a name – Ben Zygier, and this illicit recruitment of Australian citizens has a name – exploitation.

The indoctrination of Australian dual citizens into Israeli identity is nothing new. The aptly named Birthright Israel Foundation offers a free ten day educational tour of Israel for 18 to 26 year olds who are first time visitors. Its local representative is the Zionist Federation of Australia which has facilitated over 3300 Australian visits.

Their itinerary is founded on the ‘birthright of all young Jews to visit their ancestral homeland [to]…build a certain future for the Jewish people’. It has no place for education about uncertain future of the Palestinian people. Nor are visitors educated about the contradiction within their definition as both Zionist and ‘democratic’ given the many exclusive rights reserved for its Jewish citizens.

By their own admission, ‘more than 60,000 young Israelis, many of whom are active IDF soldiers, have traveled with the participants’.

The active conscription into the IDF deserves sharper focus in the light of their recent plan to ‘counter the steady decline in the number of conscripts since 2005’. This has been attributed to the drop in immigration by Diaspora Jews or Aliyah. According to Haaretz news, their recruitment drive targets a 15 percent increase from abroad such as Australia, plus a lethal combination of ultra-Orthodox youth and Arab Israelis.

We already had a wake-up call two years ago in Feb 2010 when a Hamas militant Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh was assassinated in Dubai by Mossad agents with a forged Australian passport. Foreign Minister Stephen Smith warned the Israeli ambassador that this was not the ‘act of a friend’, and then expelled a Mossad agent.

This incident taught us that an ‘Australian passport allows Israeli spies to travel throughout the Middle East without attracting suspicion’. But during his recent interview with ABC radio, the president of the Zionist Federation of Australia Philip Chester vehemently denied that ‘when we send Australians to live in Israel …there’s an industry that exists of harvesting …passports in any … illegal way.’

The unanswered questions about Prisoner X go beyond the peculiarities of Ben Zygier. They go to the heart of the taboo question on dual citizenship that the Zionist President evaded: ‘At what point does loyalty to Israel become disloyalty to Australia?’

Just because Australia and Israel are allies in the Middle East does not mean that there will never be a conflict of interest. The ‘anti terrorist’ ends does not justify illegal means. What about differences in the United Nations such as Israel voting against the recent vote to upgrade Palestinian status whereas Australia abstained? What about the fact that Zionist recruitments into IDF are essentially a one state solution to ethnically cleanse the land of their ‘birthright’, whereas Australia supports a two state solution?

Our dual citizenship laws need to be clear about this loyalty question. Australians fighting for the ‘Free Syrian Army’ or answering fatwas for a holy war from muftis in Saudi Arabia should be interrogated, but we have no t heard of one arrest or criminal charge. And would Australian Syrians who are recruited to fight with the national army be just as culpable or is that different? How is it different to an Australian Israeli ‘serving’ in the occupied West Bank?

The Department of Foreign Affairs ‘Dual nationals ‘web page merely warns about the ‘liability for military service’ as a possible obligation, and the risk of imprisonment for defaulters. But this needs much greater elaboration, especially for countries which Australia regards as enemies.
Ironically, there has been gnashing of teeth over this one soul that we have never seen over the thousands of Palestinian men, women and children who are imprisoned, tortured and killed by the same Israeli apparatus.

Posted on

Shootings spike needs a face off

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=14674

ON LINE opinion – Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate

Shootings spike needs a face-off

By Joseph Wakim

Posted Tuesday, 12 February 2013

Our current political debate about shootings has taken aim at the supply chain, but we should be disarming the demand.

The new federal offence of ‘aggravated trafficking’ would prosecute anyone smuggling more than 50 firearms within a six month period. But NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell insists that this firearm smuggling threshold should be halved, in the light of the recent spike of gun fatalities in Sydney’s West.

A voice at arm’s length to the crime culture has warned about a troubling trend to ‘fix’ disputes by hiding behind weapons. NSW Deputy Police Commissioner Nick Kaldas identified this demand for long range weapons: ‘it seems to be more acceptable now for people to get a weapon and go out and shoot them instead of having a physical altercation’.

It is this worrying trend to confront enemies from way beyond arm’s length that needs to be arrested.
When one sends a message through bullets in the anonymity of darkness, it is loud but it is not clear.
There is no face to face contact, no reading of non verbal cues such as tone or pitch, no opportunity to clarify misunderstandings, no context to the conversation, and no exposure to the human consequences on the victims and their family. All these human dynamics and cues are blocked out in the blackness.

The trend raised by Commissioner Kaldas evokes the old adage that it is harder to stab a man than it is to shoot him. The ‘physical altercation’ requires you to be up close and personal, to see the reaction as the knife enters, to see the pain in their eyes, to see the window to their soul and to see your victim as a fellow human. It is no wonder that the trend is to attack from a distance.

But this trend is not peculiar to thugs and was not born in a vacuum. The trend to hide behind shields and indeed shield ourselves from the human consequences is a huge temptation for a generation of screen-agers who ‘think with their thumbs’ as they send messages through a plethora of social media platforms such as Facebook, SMS messaging and Instagram.

The more they become well versed and reliant on the social media as their primary source of communication, the more averse they are to face to face communication. The more they rely on digital communication, which is fundamentally zeros and ones, the more they are prone to ‘non-verbal’ Asperger symptoms.

When relationships turn nasty, the (anti) social networks can be transformed into barricades and battle trenches. The ‘SEND’ button is transformed into a rocket launcher in a computer game where the targets are either not human or dehumanized. The message is transformed into a missile. They fail to face their ‘friend’ as they give a modern meaning to ‘behind their back’.

The dehumanisation and consequential disconnect increases the propensity for angry individuals who hide behind the send button to later hide behind triggers.

Ironically, the message intended by the drive by shootings is ‘I have the power to terrorise you’, but the action is everything but courageous. The faceless and nameless cowards may intend to silence their targets with fear and fire. But inevitably the result is spiralling counter attacks within a criminal culture that lacks social skills to strip off the armour and physically face the foe. Contrary to the glorified and sexed up dramatisations we see in the popular culture such as the Underbelly genre, such figures should be depicted as cowards to prevent copycat behaviour.

The demand for stocking up on weapons rather than stocking up on social skills poses urgent moral challenges if we are to curb the spike of shootings. The antidote to an over-exposure to hiding behind screens and using pseudonyms may be relearning the art of non-verbal communication, reading body language and listening skills.

It is ironic that the Simon and Garfunkel classic Sound of Silence was written 50 years ago in the aftermath of the John F Kennedy shooting, and it features the prophetic lyrics that characterise a mob mentality – ‘People hearing without listening’.

The computer screens and windscreens can create a culture of cowards who need to be taught something so fundamental to humans – face to face communication. Even in my workplace, people can be so aggressive on email, so gentle over the phone, and so shy over a coffee, as if they are out of their comfort zone.

It is time to arrest this anti-social trend because we can now see the context and the continuum from the toxic Send button to the tragic trigger.

Joseph Wakim founded the Australian Arabic Council and is a former multicultural affairs commissioner.

Posted on

Job applicants without correct creed don’t have a prayer

Job applicants without correct creed don’t have a prayer
Published: February 2, Canberra Times

This story was found at: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/job-applicants-without-correct-creed-dont-have-a-prayer-20130201-2dpyi.html

It is ironic that our moral pillars are defending their right to lawful discrimination, when they should ostensibly be crusading against this. Church-based groups insist that while they are not above the law, their fundamental right to freedom of religion trumps the right to freedom from discrimination.

The irony is richer when one looks at the submissions made a year ago in the lead-up to the Consolidated Human Rights and Anti Discrimination Bill that is currently before the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee.

When submissions were called by federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon in September 2011, she gave pre-emptive reassurances that ”religious exemptions will continue as under the current scheme”. These untouchable aspects that will not change deserve as much scrutiny as the ”protected attributes” that will change, such as sexual orientation and gender identity.

A total of 230 submissions were posted on the Attorney-General’s website, mostly from individuals. Virtually all the faith-based submissions were from churches, with none from the other major faiths. Responding to questions 20 to 22 in the discussion paper regarding these religious exemptions, these 17 church ”corporations” sang from same hymn sheet, virtually verbatim.

The first verse is led by Churches Commission on Education (YouthCARE) and anchored to Article 6(b) of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of all forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief (1981) ”to establish and maintain appropriate charitable or humanitarian institutions”. This is now interpreted broadly as the right to practise religion ”corporately”, which means that ”some roles … are entitled to include a requirement of acceptance and practise of a specified religious faith” and to ”shape organisational advertisements and job descriptions … to include certain religious dimensions”.

When I was interviewed for social work roles in faith-based corporations, a personal commitment to their ”doctrines, tenets and beliefs” did not need to be stipulated as an ”inherently” desirable attribute in their selection criteria – it was common sense. And when I was interviewing candidates in such corporations, a person of a different creed who wished to embrace our faith was welcomed. Their professional credentials trumped their personal creed. Indeed, a robust and respectful debate about the teachings of the church is encouraged in my children’s Catholic school, not grounds for refusal or dismissal.

The Australian Baptist Ministries led the next verse by vowing that ”rules pertaining to the employment of staff by a religious organisation ought to be considered on similar grounds as employment of staff by a political organisation”. This is a self defeating argument because greens or gun lobbies are not exempted from the discrimination laws and do not insist on the right to select candidates of their own colour to prevent being tainted.

The next verse rejects the language of exceptions or exemption because the ”right to religious freedom … should be seen as a fully fledged right in itself”, identical wording used by both YouthCARE and Anglicare submissions.

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference adds weight by insisting that religious freedom is a ”fundamental human right that government is obliged to protect”. This is akin to arguing that we should never open this door because it has always been that way.

The chorus was a covenant cited by virtually all the faithful voices: Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights (1966) which enshrines the right of religion ”in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his [sic] religion or belief in worship, observance, practise and teaching”. However, article 18(3) adds that this freedom ”may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect … the fundamental rights and freedom of others”.

This negation of the religious freedom trump card is challenged by the YouthCARE submission which argues that ”in situations where there is a conflict of rights, a specific right of persons to practise their religious beliefs … prevails over a general right of persons not to be discriminated against on the ground of religion”. Indeed, it is an existential threat – ”Without this requirement, we cannot maintain our character as a Christian organisation or carry out our mission”.

The haunting hymn culminates with scaremongering by Christian Schools Australia about an atheist nation where ”freedom of religion may effectively become freedom from religion”.

But are these old arguments red herrings? Where is the research which verifies how often these discrimination exemptions have been invoked? How many non-believers would apply for such jobs if the exemptions were lifted?

The exposure draft of this consolidated bill was issued in November last year and adopts the spirit of this hymn. Section 33 states that it is ”not unlawful” for religious bodies to discriminate ”in good faith, and conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion, or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion”.

Conjuring old covenants, declarations and ”traditions going back centuries” are not contemporary or compelling arguments to counter the ”public money means public liability” paradigm. Surely the royal commission into institutional responses to child abuse has heralded a new era to rethink old ways and open the church doors, not close them.

The hymn should sing something more akin to biblical covenants than man-made covenants: even if we are immune from the law, we will not discriminate any more. We have nothing to hide and will have nothing to fear.

Joseph Wakim is a former multicultural affairs commissioner and a founder of the Australian Arabic Council.

Posted on

Render unto Caesar: Israel and the Catholic Church must have their day in court

http://bit.ly/UVitY6

Render unto Caesar: Israel and the Catholic Church must have their day in court

Joseph Wakim ABC Religion and Ethics 17 Dec 2012

The public faces of Israel and the Catholic Church in Australia, Pell and Netanyahu, need not to fear the criminal courts. It may earn them greater respect, to replace the suspicion and resentment.

What do abuses of power by church clergy and the Israeli government have in common? Both flirt within civil spheres while they skirt the criminal courts.

Both church and Israeli leadership have portrayed violations against children and Palestinians respectively as anything but criminal. The defence mechanisms deployed by both theocratic institutions bear striking similarities. As their sanctity is subjected to unprecedented scrutiny, they may face unprecedented accountability to the law of the land.

With the Gillard government’s launch of the Royal Commission into “institutional responses to child abuse,” Catholic Cardinal George Pell has had to reconstruct paedophilia more as a crime than a sin. By biblical definitions, sins disobey divine laws and make a “separation between you and your God.”

Under Catholic Canon Law, sins are forgivable through the sacrament of confession and the fulfilment of the prescribed penance. Contrary to popular misconceptions, absolution is neither an absolute guarantee nor a revolving door. If the sin is a crime, the confessor may be told “no absolution without first confessing to the victim, handing yourself in to the police, and treating your addiction.”

The confession can remain confidential, and the sin can remain forgivable, but “conditions apply.” Sacred laws and secular laws are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Sins should be surrendered to God, but crimes should be surrendered to the courts – and the two can be both compatible and concurrent. Enough experienced clergy have declared that child abuse is rarely confessed, as paedophiles tend to be more pathological and do not see themselves as sinners.

In past practice, such perverts were (mis)managed and transferred internally as serial sinners who are forgiven and “will try not to sin again.” Instead, they could have been treated as serial criminals who infiltrated and polluted their holy order and need to be stripped of their collars and cloth then surrendered for punishment as well as penance.

Cardinal Pell should have focused less on the “seal of confession is inviolable” and more on “nobody is above the law of the land.” Even Jesus Christ was subjected to trials in both courts, albeit unjustly. His charge of blasphemy was heard before the Sanhedrin Court under Jewish law, and had this charge upgraded to treason before Governor Pilate under Roman law. Contrary to the false witnesses, Jesus never shunned secular obedience nor the law of the land, but instructed his followers to “render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.”

Hence, this does not challenge the theology of forgivable sins, but couches them into dual accountability, which is integral to this message of Jesus.

Criminal courts have never been perfect, but they cannot be skirted. If these institutions and leaders have nothing to hide, then they should have nothing to fear.

Just as the confessional has been exempted from the mandatory reporting of child abuse as a criminal offence, Israel expects to be exempted from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. It expects those harmed by its “apartheid policies” to remain silent and relinquish their right to access the ICC, or face further financial bribery from its American accomplice.

Ironically, Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s vindictive “talking point” after the recent UN decision was that, “The Palestinians will quickly realize that they made a mistake when they took a unilateral step that violated agreements with Israel.” And yet the only unilateral step is the latest roll out of 3000 Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory. Netanyahu seeks a bilateral solution by pretending that “our conflict with the Palestinians will be resolved only through direct negotiations,” as if they were two equal sides. But the real solution is multilateral by taking the territorial violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity to the ICC.

With some Israeli leaders believing that they have a divine right to all of the Promised Land that was given to Abraham and his “seed,” this would resonate with the defence of some Catholic leaders that Canon Law is above the law of the land. The parallels extend to paradoxes about those skirting the criminal justice system: How can “men of the cloth” who ostensibly represent holiness stoop to such evil acts? How can descendants of Holocaust survivors on the holy land preach “never again” yet practice or condone such inhuman acts? How can authorities charged with the custody of weaker parties, holy lands and minors betray that trust with crimes?

Both authorities may need to literally surrender land for peace. While the church may need to sell estates to pay for civil damages and criminal trials, the Israeli government may need to roll back the settlements so that Palestinians have a viable sovereign state.

There is growing disquiet among both church laity and Israeli citizenry over the skirting of criminal culpability. These voices prefer their leadership to “come clean” so that those corrupting their core values are exorcised: voices like veteran Israeli soldiers who testified against abuses in Breaking the Silence; voices like the Catholic laity who reconcile Canon Law with secular law.

The public faces of these powerful institutions – Cardinal George Pell and Benjamin Netanyahu – do not need to fear the criminal courts. But when they were silent about the unholy atrocities committed by their lower ranks, there were screams by those violated. By facing the law of the land, they are reconciling with the rest of the human family. This may earn them greater respect and openness, to replace the suspicion and resentment.

Joseph Wakim established the Streetwork Project for exploited children in Adelaide in 1986, was appointed Victorian Multicultural Affairs Commissioner in 1991, and founded the Australian Arabic Council in 1992. In 1996, he received the Commonwealth Violence Prevention Award for his anti-racism work. In 2001, he was awarded the Order of Australia Medal (OAM) for his anti-racism campaigns.

Posted on

Carr Calls For Syria Assassination

http://bit.ly/QfnBXg
Published on newmatilda.com (http://newmatilda.com)
________________________________________
10 Oct 2012

Carr Calls For Syria Assassination

By calling for the murder of Bashar al-Assad, Foreign Minister Bob Carr has shown both his hypocrisy and his lack of understanding about our “allies” in the Syrian uprising, writes Joseph Wakim

Public figures must think twice before commenting about someone’s death.

Veteran broadcaster Alan Jones has learned this lesson after “cyber democracy” took Australian decency into its own hands. They have inscribed an epitaph for his career: you reap what you sow.

But it appears that Foreign Minister Bob Carr has learnt nothing about the volatility of the “death sentence”. His “brutal and callous” call for the assassination of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad on ABC Four Corners on Monday was utterly un-Australian, and warrants immediate sanction by Julia Gillard.

Our foreign minister represents a liberal democracy where murder is a crime and the death sentence has long been outlawed. Assassination should not be part of Australia’s strategy to end the proxy war between Iran and Israel that is fought on Syrian soil.

Carr’s comments are yet another example of the foreign minister is trying to force-fit the Libyan template over Syrian territory.

Carr’s rationale that “an assassination combined with a major defection … is what is required to get, one, a ceasefire, and, two, political negotiations” smacks of dangerous naivety. It ignores the fact that to the president and his supporters, Syria is fighting its own “war on terror” and defending its sovereign territory. This religious war has been proudly sponsored by the US and its Gulf allies — the undemocratic kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Rather than creating a cease fire, an assassination would escalate the war beyond the five volatile Syrian borders. Does Carr seriously think that Iran, Russia and China would sit idly by as yet another regime is militarily toppled?

Carr concludes that “we’ve got nothing to do but trust the spirit of the Arab Spring”. The embers of the Arab Spring were actually extinguished long ago by what he himself calls “religious fanatics … who want another form of dictatorship”. The “jihadists,” who answer to fatwas from Saudi sheiks for a holy war to ethnically cleanse Syria from non-Sunnis, want a Salafist theocracy, not a secular democracy. Ironically, Carr’s call for an assassination aligns him with Sheikh Muhammad al Zughbey — “your jihad against this infidel criminal and his people is a religious duty”.

When asked about the presence of Islamic extremists or al Qaeda in the uprising, Carr insists that “the truth is … nobody knows … outside Damascus, observation doesn’t exist”. His sources are all sworn enemies of the Syrian regime — The Friends of Syria, Gulf leaders and Western leaders — and of course they will not concede that extremists have hijacked the uprising.

Inside Syria, observation and monitoring does exist and the al-Qaeda presence has been repeatedly revealed. Journalist Robert Fisk interviewed so-called Syrian rebels inside a Syrian military prison in August, only to find that most were “recycled” foreign mercenaries. Inconvenient facts and counter-narratives such as this cannot be dismissed as pro-Assad propaganda, although Fisk’s piece in particular has drawn some criticism, including from Syrian political dissident Yassin Al-Haj Saleh.

Moreover, Carr has an immediate opportunity to be enlightened by a visiting Syrian nun who has been at the centre of the violence, tending to the war wounded. Despite repeated requests to meet with him, Mother Agnes-Mariam from St James Catholic monastery in Homs has been shunned. She has been forced to flee to Lebanon after being warned that the rebel forces, our allies and future assassins, plotted to abduct her.

Why? Because she was outspoken about the “aggressive armed gangs … abducting people, beheading, bringing terror even to schools”. Like Fisk, she confirms that only about one in 20 rebels are Syrian. She has witnessed how the uprising “steadily became a violent Islamist expression against a liberal secular society” and testifies to a “hidden will to empty the Middle East of its Christian presence”. This darker truth belies the “spirit of the Arab Spring” in Carr’s fantasy.

Unlike Carr, Mother Agnes has a peaceful solution that is gaining momentum — Mussalaha (reconciliation) — a grass roots movement for dialogue and negotiation among Syrian citizens of all ethnic and religious backgrounds who “reject sectarian violence and are tired of war”.

Unlike Carr, her method not assassination and defection, but disarmament — “freeing them of this massive foreign interference and this media instigation for violence”. As part of her international peace mission to the Vatican and the EU, she will lead a delegation of Nobel Prize laureates to Syria next month.

It is abhorrent that Carr links assassination with “what Kofi Annan said was essential”. Like Mother Agnes, Annan promoted disarmament.
Above the negotiation table, the US-Saudi-Qatar axis talked about a political solution, but under the table they sabotaged his “peace plan” with a lucrative supply chain of arms, while criticising those who vetoed more military solutions.

Why is Carr afraid to meet with Mother Agnes? Because she will disarm him of his “just war” theory, and force him to face the facts that he has put us in bed with the terrorists. She may even enlighten him that it was not Libya that endured 17 years of civil war, as he stated, but Lebanon — for 15 years. Like Alan Jones, he should know better, but chooses not to.
________________________________________
Source URL: http://newmatilda.com/2012/10/10/carr-calls-syria-assassination
Links:
[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/radio-broadcaster-alan-jones-blames-cyber-bullying-for-commercials-being-pulled-from-show/story-e6frg996-1226490322476
[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-04/interview-with-bob-carr/4302980
[3] http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/120814/syria-us-proxy-war-iran-saudi-arabia-qatar-sunni-shiite
[4] http://mideastmedia.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/provocative-sheikhs-views-aired.html
[5] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-syrias-road-from-jihad-to-prison-8100749.html
[6] http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/18/51930/Books/Syrian-writer-Robert-Fisk-is-indoctrinated-by-Syri.aspx
[7] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/christians-emptied-from-middle-east/story-e6frg6so-1226489418086
[8] http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/Syria/press.asp?NewsID=1236&sID=41

Posted on

Al-Qaeda now a US ally in Syria

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/alqaeda-now-a-us-ally-in-syria-20120910-25oby.html
Canberra Times
September 11, 2012

bit.ly/Nktmow

Al-Qaeda now a US ally in Syria

While we reflect on the 11th anniversary of the al Qaeda attacks on American soil, there is a blinding light that may obscure our view: this sworn enemy now fights hand in hand with the US against the Syrian regime.

The historic State of the Union address by US president George W. Bush on September 20, 2001 is loaded with morals and principles about good and evil.

The president’s ultimatum was clear: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

In Syria, there is mounting evidence that Al Qaeda and its allies are actively deploying terror tactics and suicide bombers to overthrow the Assad regime.

Syrian citizens who prefer the secular and stable state to the prospect of an Iraqi-style sectarian state may well be turning this same question around to the US government: are you with us, or with the terrorists?

This week, head of the Salafi jihad and close ally of al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, pledged ”deadly attacks” against Syria as ”our fighters are coming to get you” because ”crimes” by the regime ”prompts us to jihad”.

Bush referred to al Qaeda as the enemies of freedom: ”the terrorists’ directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews”. But Sheikh Muhammad al Zughbey proclaimed that ”your jihad against this infidel criminal and his people is a religious duty …
Alawites are more infidel than the Jews and Christians”. Because the new jihad targets Alawites rather than Jews and Christians, does this render them better bed fellows?

By his own admission, Bush stated that al Qaeda was ”linked to many other organisations in different countries … They are recruited from their own nations … where they are trained in the tactics of terror … They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction”.

Yet this is precisely how the foreign jihadists in Syria have been described by reporters. They are funded and armed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And they collaborate with the Free Syrian Army which is aided and abetted by the US.

Bush condemned the Taliban regime because they were ”sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder”. Eleven years later, the parallels produce an uncomfortable truth.

If only the Syrian uprising was as simple as the Arab Spring narrative where citizens seek democracy and freedom. But those unarmed protests have long since been hijacked by a cocktail of agendas which have little to do with Syrian democracy, and more to do with a proxy war to create a sectarian Sunni state that weakens Shi’te Iran’s main partner in the region.

Bush was correct in claiming that al Qaeda ”want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan” – who were all US-Israel allies at that time.

But his list stopped short of mentioning Syria or Iraq, the real targets of al Qaeda. Why does overthrowing Syria, using the same terror tactics, fail to attract the same degree of outrage?

Bush continues: ”We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.”

This pledge appears to have fallen on its own sword, given the funding of the jihadists in Syria. The terrorists have bred and spread across borders, which is the opposite of Bush’s prophecy.

The US administration must come clean about its financial aid. It cannot use one hand to sign a blank cheque to the rebels, and the other hand to cover its eyes to their immoral and illegal tactics. It cannot hide behind ”the end justifies the means” as there are too many innocent lives at stake.

Bush rode off on his high horse: ”We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them … may God grant us wisdom”.

If the principles and morality are to be taken seriously, then they need to be applied consistently.

The US regime should be actively and publicly distancing itself from the foreign terrorists and Salafist jihadists that are proliferating within sovereign Syria.

It should be condemning al Qaeda for its militant intervention. It should be condemning the Saudi sheikhs who issue fatwas for an Alawite holocaust.

The wisdom that we see is grief over the al Qaeda crime 11 years ago, yet covert collaboration with this sworn enemy today.

Perhaps the US is applying another principle that they may have learned from their pragmatic Arab allies – the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Posted on

Syria Needs Elections, Not Arms

http://newmatilda.com/2012/08/03/syria-needs-elections-not-arms
3 Aug 2012

Now that Kofi Annan has resigned as special envoy, the only solution left in Syria is a presidential election. But internationally sponsored violence will complicate things, writes Joseph Wakim
If Syrians re-elected their president in a free and fair election, would the rebels and their sponsors pack up and go home?

Imagine if the UN Supervision Mission in Syria extended its mandate to beyond August to monitor a national referendum on the Syrian presidency. Threats, violence and boycotts could be prevented, and all eligible citizens could vote free from fear or favour.

We have seen UN Peacekeeping missions provide security, technical, logistical and educational support for referendums and elections at polling stations in volatile areas. During the past two decades, the UN has provided such assistance to over 100 countries such as Cambodia in May 1993, East Timor in August 2001 and South Sudan in January 2011.

Syrian citizens already cast their votes at the unprecedented multi-party elections on 7 May, where 7125 candidates, including 710 women, competed for the 250 seat People’s Assembly.

But the last presidential election was held in May 2007 and “officially” gave Bashar Al-Assad 97.6 per cent approval to continue for his second seven year term. This was farcical given that he was unopposed. Yet since the Arab Spring ignited Syria in March 2011, tens of thousands of civilians, soldiers and rebels have perished in an international proxy war.

Syria has become increasingly militarised thanks to Russia, China and Iran, who are propping up and protecting the regime, while US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and al Qaeda are arming, aiding and abetting the rebels, suicide bombers, terrorists and their mercenaries. It was revealed this week that the Obama Administration was collaborating with Saudi Arabia and Qatar to channel military and communications aid to a secret “nerve centre” in Adana, a Turkish city about 100 kilometres from the Syrian border.

It is no surprise that UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan has announced his resignation from the post. He must have been tempted to lose his diplomatic demeanour and overturn the “negotiation table”. These key stakeholder nations talk about a political solution but under the table they sabotage his “peace plan” with a lucrative supply chain of arms. Hence he criticised the “clear lack of unity” and “finger pointing and name calling in the Security Council”. In case there was any question about which side Annan was referring to, White House spokesman Jay Carney was quick to blame Russia and China.

While the disparate rebel groups and their sponsors demand that Assad must step down to save Syria from further bloodshed, the terror tactics of the rebels have alienated citizens who support the president. A circuit breaker could be brokered if all parties disarm and the next presidential election is brought forward from 2014.

If the Syrian National Council ostensibly represents the majority, then it must honour the free will of the citizens and look forward to greater legitimacy. If the Assad regime ostensibly retains the confidence of its citizens, then it should have nothing to hide or fear, and should look forward to vindication.

It is already on the public record that the president will only stay if it is the will of his people, not the Baath Party. In a February 2012 referendum that saw the end of the Baath Party monopoly, Assad also ushered in a reform that would cap any president to two seven-year terms.

Assad should order his supporters to fully cooperate with the UN Monitors. If he fails to gain the majority of votes, he should honour the will of the citizens and step down, facing the consequences under national and international laws — whether it be amnesty, exile or trial.

Similarly, the Syrian National Council should order the Free Syrian Army and all its international collaborators to back off, so the voice of the people can prevail. If Assad is re-elected, then those claiming to be the legitimate opposition must equally honour the will of Syria’s citizens.

It means the Syrian National Council may become a political party in the new pluralistic political system. The Free Syrian Army would disarm, perhaps with an amnesty, and disband immediately. The remaining Salafists, terrorists, suicide bombers and mercenaries would “return to sender”.

Most importantly, their international sponsors such as the USA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey would have to honour the UN monitored result and immediately cut supply to the rebel militias. Who could argue with this fair proposal?

The USA does. While they are ostensibly interested in democracy and peace, their unspoken agenda has nothing to do with Syria. It has everything to do with two other countries: Iran and Israel, which were prominently in the news before the Syrian uprising but have since disappeared off the radar.

The US insists Iran is making a nuclear weapon, despite the country’s insistence that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Israel is threatened by the possibility of another nuclear power in the region, especially given Iran’s allies on its border — Syria and Hezbollah.

So if the US does not wish to provoke the ire of a potentially nuclear Iran, as it may indirectly endanger Israel, what is the next best contingency to protect Israel? Weaken Syria by engineering a “civil war” so that Syria’s army, president and borders are exhausted, and the country self implodes into a non threatening neighbour.

Of course, what will be said in public would be more benevolent: we cannot accept the outcome of the UN monitored presidential election because those in exile or who have sought asylum in Turkey could not vote. The Syrian people have lived in fear under a dictatorship for over 40 years, when voting against the president was suicidal.

Only in hot water can we flush out the true colors of this “civil war”.

Posted on

http://bit.ly/LPcHWO
27 June 2012

Arab Spring model not a Syrian reality
Published in The Drum, ABC On Line, 28 June 2012

Foreign Minister Bob Carr has adopted a pre-emptive and partisan position on the Syrian situation.

This may not reflect the will of the majority of Syrian citizens, nor the good will of the UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan, nor indeed the majority of Australian citizens of Syrian descent.
Rather than being peacemakers in a polarized situation, Carr has cornered Australia into a position of a provocateur.

After the al Houla infanticide on May 29, he jumped the gun and expelled the Syrian diplomats, long before the UN investigated the facts. This week, he has ramped up the anti-Syrian sanctions, which are largely tokenistic given the minimal trade between the two countries.

He challenges Russian president Vladimir Putin to put ‘pressure on Assad to walk off the stage’. Knowing that Russia supplies arms to Syria, why not also put pressure on the US-Saudi-Qatar axis to stop supplying arms to the fractured opposition groups? This way, his efforts to demilitarise the conflict and help bring the parties to the UN negotiating table can be taken more seriously.

On March 21, 2001, the Syrian revolution was heralded with graffiti by unarmed teenagers in Dara’a, ‘the people want the regime to fall’, a copycat mantra inspired by the Arab Spring in North Africa. This ember that drifted into Syria was swiftly snuffed by the local authoritarian guard and the youth were imprisoned. The Syrian president squandered a historic opportunity to listen to the grievances of these sons of Syria. He could have orchestrated a political evolution instead of a bloody revolution. He could have morally disarmed the opposition, both exiled and resident.

President Assad misread all the writing on the wall, and believed that he was immune from this social tsunami sweeping across the Arab region. Two months before this trigger, he declared that ‘Syria is stable’ because he was ‘very closely linked to the beliefs of the people’. In his March 30 speech to parliament, he could have opened serious dialogue to harness the angst rather than peddling conspiracy theories. Instead, he wrote off dissenting voices as terrorists which has ironically become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

By his own admission, ‘Syria is geographically and politically in the middle of the Middle East’, sharing borders with Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Israel, so he should have been ultra cautious about Syria’s vulnerability.

The unarmed teenage message has been usurped by the militant Syrian National Council (SNC), who make the teenagers look like kittens.

Today, even the voices of the SNC have been hijacked by the Salafist Sheikhs proclaiming Fatwas and jihads against all the pro-Assad infidels. The jihadists do not take man-made orders from the SNC in Istanbul. They take divine orders direct from Saudi Arabia.

Their rants are viral on YouTube and they make the fractured SNC sound like pussy cats in a lion’s den. The neat Arab Spring template of goodies and baddies fails to fit the reality on the ground in Syria.

On one hand, Assad is sanctioned for failing to exercise restraint against the armed opposition groups.

On the other hand, his citizens criticise him for failing to defend them against the invading jihadists.

It is exactly one year since Sheikh Adnan Arour declared that ‘for those [Alawites] who violated all that is sacred, by Allah the Great, we shall mince them in meat grinders and feed their flesh to the dogs’.

Similarly Sheikh Muhammad al Zughbey proclaimed that ‘your jihad against this infidel criminal and his people is a religious duty’ and that Alawites are ‘more infidel than the Jews and Christians’. It is no surprise that original teenage slogan has been replaced with a sectarian one ‘Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave’.

The Arab adage ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ creates bizarre bed fellows. Last May, we celebrated when the Al Qaeda leader was buried at sea, yet now we collaborate with them as they embark upon ethnic cleansing.

The Salafists taint the reputation of the Sunni ‘guardians’ in Saudi Arabia, with their threats of hell for Assad loyalists and promises of a (promiscuous) paradise for martyrs.

With the Fatwas ‘on tap’ making mockery of his country, Sheikh Ali al-Hikmi of the Saudi Council of
Senior Scholars deployed an anti-ballistic missile with his counter-fatwa forbidding all jihad in Syria.
On February 7, Dr Yusuf al Qaradawi, president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, issued another ‘damage control’ fatwa, co-signed by 107 other Muslim scholars, declaring the ‘need to protect the ethnic and religious minorities which have lived for more than a thousand years as part of the Syrian people’.

Ironically, the more the Salafists terrorise Syria, the more the Syrians cling to Bashar al Assad as their saviour, which feeds directly into the Salafist claim that these infidels worship Assad above Allah.
However, these jihadist calls continue to echo in Australia through the social media with impunity and their followers have sought to terrorise Australian Alawis with petrol bombs, vilifying graffiti and death threats. The targeted citizens believe that Mr Carr’s anti-Assad stance has validated and unleashed the anti-Alawi sentiments, which he needs to untangle and condemn.

There is nothing civil about the war in Syria – it is a proxy war to protect Israel from a nuclear Iran. This was confirmed when Israel’s defence minister Ehud Barak declared that toppling Assad ‘will be a major blow to the radical axis [Iran] … It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world … and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza’.

President Assad should have treated the writing on the wall as a sectarian inscribed prophecy, not as secular erasable graffiti. Even if another UN monitored election voted Assad back into presidency. Even if a UN supervised political negotiation is brokered, where the exiled opposition can table their demands, many of which have already been met. His enemies have already written the next chapter of history, where he has been written off.

It is the height of arrogance to assume that we know the will of Syrian citizens, who are increasingly demanding stability over democracy. We cannot be hell bent on regime change and peace brokers at the same time.

Posted on

Australia’s Naivety On Syria

New Matilda, 4 June 2012

http://newmatilda.com/2012/06/04/australias-naivety-syria
Australia’s Naivety On Syria

Expelling Syrian diplomats from Australia over the al Houla massacre assumes the Assad regime is to blame. The Syrian situation is too complex to act without evidence, writes Joseph Wakim

Spot the three fundamental flaws in this statement by Foreign Minister Bob Carr after he expelled the two most senior Syrian diplomats from Australia:

“Getting Damascus to move towards a ceasefire and to engage in political dialogue with its opposition is the one game plan we’ve got here.”

First, by blaming the Syrian government for the al-Houla atrocity in the Homs Province, he was at odds with the two other diplomats from the UN: Major General Robert Mood, Head of the UN Observer Mission and Joint Special Envoy for the UN/Arab League and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Mood, in his statements after the al-Houla tragedy that saw 108 civilians killed, including 49 children, exercised caution.

“I should not jump to conclusions” he said, urging both the government and the “armed opposition to refrain from violence in all its forms”.

Likewise, Annan issued a condemnation of this “appalling crime… not only for the government but for everyone with a gun”.

If both diplomats remain unconvinced that this massacre could be attributed totally to the Syrian government while the evidence is still being investigated, why has our foreign minister jumped the gun on our behalf?

After the Syrian National Council “repeatedly called for the arming of the Free Syrian Army” the United States pledged “non-lethal” communications equipment while the oil rich states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar committed US$100 million. The military toys are now in the hands of the boys, many of whom are non-Syrian youth recruited from neighbouring countries.

How can we “move towards a ceasefire” if Annan’s six week old, six point plan is undermined by this foreign funding to militarise the conflict? Similarly, Russia should cease to supply arms to the Syrian government.

Second, after Syrian National Army founder Osama al-Munjid vowed “we will never sit and talk” with “butcher Bashar”, how can our foreign minister seriously advocate the possibility of political dialogue? If the SNA are hell bent on toppling this “murderous regime”, they have no interest in negotiation, and will seek every opportunity to incriminate the government to trigger a Libya-style NATO intervention.

Hence the recent 48-hour ultimatum to abandon the ceasefire by the Free Syrian Army’s Colonel Qassim Saadeddine was a cynical stunt. They have no serious intention to engage in political dialogue, yet demand the government “hand over power to the Syrian people”. This is ironic given the 7 May parliamentary elections in Syria. They threaten civil war if the Syrian army does not honour the ceasefire which they themselves have dishonoured.

The stalemate is compounded when the Syrian president insists that there would be “no dialogue” with opposition groups which “seek foreign intervention”.

Our foreign minister needs to use the word opposition in the plural, for Syria’s rebel forces are far from united in their goals and strategy. The original youth who staged an unarmed protest have had their cause hijacked by everyone from Marxist intellectuals to the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Salafists, foreign mercenaries, and Jihadists linked with al Qaeda — ironically now “in bed” with the USA. Some want democracy, others theocracy. Some want urban guerrilla warfare or a bloody overthrow of Assad and others oppose all violence.

It appears the US prefers a Yemen style revolution, maintaining the established secular regime to control the masses, but replacing the president with a puppet who they can control to suit the agenda of their Saudi-Israeli sponsors.

This undermines the goals of political dialogue is indeed the best outcome; it is naïve and hypocritical to push for discussion while the US and our other allies condone an increasingly militarised and divergent “opposition”.

Third, the “game plan” advocated by our foreign minister appears to have misread the more complex reality on the ground in Syria. Modelled on the Libyan rebels, opposition groups seek to create strongholds by setting up road blocks and consolidating pockets of territory.

Once this is achieved, foreign funding can be funnelled in and anti-government attacks can be launched. The Syrian government then overreacts, moving in to smash the potential pocket.

Although the Syria debate is becoming more polarised, critics of the opposition groups are not, by default, Assad apologists. The government’s predictable propaganda and claims of a “tsunami of lies” from the Western media is useless without offering a tsunami of credible evidence to support its claim to truth.

It is insufficient to say the army has “taken an oath to protect civilians” from a foreign armed invasion, and then respond heavy-handedly, rolling army tanks into residential areas. The Syrian government has created a rod for its own back and cannot continue to blame armed gangs and terrorists every time an atrocity is committed.

For example, it needs to explain what its army was doing during the infanticide from 2pm until 11pm on Friday 25 May when the al-Houla area was “guarded by the government forces at five points”, according to Syrian Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi, who also announced a “military judicial committee” to investigate the incident?

President Assad’s speech to the newly elected People’s Assembly on Sunday reiterated his siege mentality as he referred to “a war from abroad, to destroy the country”. Hence he has not pitched the violence as a civil war between his own citizens, but as a foreign invasion of Syria’s sovereignty by terrorists and a conspiracy.

Ironically, this has become a self fulfilling prophecy as the more protracted the conflict, the more foreign forces take root. His speech offered nothing new, and the only circuit breaker to the spiralling violence is unconditional political negotiations, as all armed soldiers in Syria are ultimately supplied by foreign forces.

Like the twin suicide car bombs in Damascus which killed 55 people on 10 May near the Syrian military intelligence building, we may never know the truth about these terrorist acts. The close-range shootings and stabbings are atypical to the Syrian army’s methods. It is probable over time that opposition will not have a monopoly on splinter groups and proxies; vindictive pro-Assad militia will likely emerge and commit atrocities in the government’s name.

During his press conference, our Foreign Minister appeared besieged by journalists who appeared to have a more sophisticated understanding of Syria than he did, as he repeatedly retorted: “I need to get advice on that”.

Indeed, he should have been advised not to copy allies who are enemies of the Syrian government. The only message expelling diplomats sends is that we are pre-empting the emergence of conclusive evidence on the many monsters behind the al Houla massacre. By joining the US-led chorus pushing for regime change regardless of the facts, we become followers, not leaders.