The Future of Syria

Yesterday a conference was held in Aqaba in Jordan to determine the future of Syria. It was attended by representatives of other countries in the region, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Turkey, as well as a representative of the European Union and the United States. 

At the subsequent press conference, the stress was laid on the importance of the stability of Syria because the stability of the whole region depends upon that. Syria has always been the lynchpin for regional stability. Other parameters expressed were the territorial integrity of Syria, inclusive government, guaranteeing the rights of the monitories of which there are many in Syria. In Syria until now the rights of all minorities were enshrined in the constitution so all they need to do is maintain the status quo.

Each country representative, mainly foreign ministers, spoke. Another aspect which they said was paramount was to ensure that no terrorist groups were active in the country. If they are serious about that, what it means in practice is that all the factions which have now claimed power should be expelled because they are all terrorist organisations. 

Sometimes I am amazed at the hypocrisy of politicians. Territorial integrity is a fundamental question and yet, as they spoke, Turkey was backing a rebel group in the north-west of the country combatting the Kurdish forces backed by the US in the north- east. Talk about speaking out of both sides of the mouth!

The EU High Representative for Syria, still wet behind the ears and smiling like a Cheshire cat because this is probably the most high profile foreign assignment of her career, stressed the need for “accountability”. None of the regional representatives mentioned this topic because they know what it means – a bloodbath – but Ms Kallas would appear not to have a clue and was operating from the usual EU position of occupying the “moral high ground”.

The US was not present at the joint press conference. Antony Blinken held his own private press conference accompanied by two US flags, one on either side. Why did he do this? Quite simple. He did not want to be associated with the condemnation of ongoing Israeli expansionism, bombing Damascus and occupying ever more territory. Surely the most powerful man in the US is Benjamin Netanyahu!

If there is this deep and highly public divide at this early stage, what hope is there for Syria? The words were there, but are the intentions coherent with the words? Or is it all talk? Will they be able to walk the talk? The other Arab countries of the region are only too well aware of the consequences for their own countries if Syria dissolves into chaos. Turkey has its own agenda as does the US and the EU is a vassal state. Time will tell…

“They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots."

 “They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots."

This is exactly what is happening now in Syria:

• Israel has already taken the Golan Height and Mount Hermon and is advancing on Damascus to fulfil the desires of the finance minister Smotrich and his extreme right-wing Zionist supporters as part of the push for the  “Greater Israel”; 

• Turkey holds the northwest of the country where it had been supporting the terrorists there;

• The Kurds, supported by the US, want the northeast and 

• the US installed its bases in the east of the country years ago and has no intention of leaving.

The mainstream media in the West is making much of this “liberation” and the joyous “celebrations” of the population. Let us remember that at the end of any war a large swathe of the population hails the victors not out of conviction but to ingratiate themselves or save their own hide.

Just in case anyone is labouring under some illusion, we shall take a look at who is poised to rule the country now.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is the largest of the terrorist groups which have been active in the country.  This group was formed in 2011 as part of the misnamed “Arab Spring” to fight in the equally misnamed Syrian “civil war” where the combatants were imported from Libya, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and many other places.

HTS was formerly known as Jabhat Fateh al-Nusra (Does that ring a bell?). Then it mutated into Jabhat Fateh al-Sham. It is a group of allied factions including Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, Liwa al-Haqq, Jabhat Ansar al-Din and Jaysh al-Sunna.

Jabhat al-Nusra was formed in 2012 by ISIL (ISIS) (Remember them?) but split away a year later declaring its allegiance to al-Qaeda (Sounds familiar?) They later cut their ties with al-Qaeda and in 2017 joined up with other factions to rebrand as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

They held sway in the area of Idlib, financing their activities from the resources of the area, including oil. The hands and money of outside foreign powers provided great support.

These are the hands on which Syria‘s fate now depends. 

The Story of Ahmad

 

Hoy quiero contar la historia de Ahmad. Ahmad era un bebé de 18 meses. Su familia - madre, padre, dos hermanas y dos hermanos - fue desplazada en numerosas ocasiones hasta que finalmente terminaron en Rafah, el pueblo más al sur de la franja de Gaza.

Con la incursión terrestre y el bombardeo del lugar designado por las autoridades israelíes como "lugar seguro" donde más de 1,5 millón de palelstinos se refugiaron, la familia, al igual que cientos de miles de otros palestinos, se vio obligada a huir de nuevo.

Esta vez terminaron en el lugar designado por las autoridades, la playa de Al Mawasi, pero Al Mawasi también fue bombardeado y murieron Ahmad, su madre y sus dos hermanas. En la explosión Ahmad fue decapitado. Su padre no pudo encontrar la cabeza y se vio forzado a enterrar el cuerpecito sin cabeza y los cadáveres de su esposa y dos hijas en una fosa provisional.

Uno de los niños que sobrevivió, de unos 7 años, decía: "Yo quiero morir para estar con ellos.". El hermano más pequeño, de unos 4 años, repetía: "Echo de menos a mi mamá".

¿Por qué toleramos esto? ¿Por qué permitimos que semejante sufrimiento ocurra y continue? ¿Por qué los gobiernos no sólo lo toleran sino que lo condonan y/o apoyan? ¿Por qué un gobierno tiene carta blanca para cometer actos que si fuesen cometidos por otros estados serían condenados de inmediato?

Y esto es el animal que se autodenomina "inteligente".

Words and Wording

 

As a linguist, I am acutely aware of the importance of words and wording. This aspect has been at the forefront in recent days because politicians are also past masters in the manipulation of words.

 

So far nothing has come of the UN ceasefire resolution for Gaza and, as is to be expected, the onus has been placed squarely on the shoulders of Hamas. However, just how fair is this?

 

Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the main groups combatting Israel’s invasion of Gaza, initially expressed their pleasure at the resolution being passed so overwhelmingly, and later sent their response to their mediators, Qatar and Egypt. To date Israel has not issued any official response, despite the fact that Antony Blinken has been repeating that Israel is “on board”, has “accepted the proposal” and that Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed his support for the deal. No public statement was made by Netanyahu in over a week, however, and, even if it had, an individual opinion is completely irrelevant when any acceptance or rejection must come from the Israeli government as the decision to declare war was taken by the government.

 

Hamas’s response made a number of alterations to the proposed plan. The most important of these are:

·      An immediate and definitive ceasefire

·      Withdrawal of all Israeli troops from the Gaza strip.

 

What is the reasoning behind these requests?

 

By asking for an immediate ceasefire, Hamas is basically proposing to go directly to what would be Phase two of the proposed plan, thus indicating a willingness to put a permanent end to the conflict.

 

There is a good reason for this. The US proposal wants a six week ceasefire, and phase two would only come into effect if accepted by both parties. Basically this is a way of giving Israel what it has said all along that it wanted. From the outset Israel has stated that if a ceasefire were to be put in place to secure the release of Israeli hostages, they would immediately resume the war once the stipulated period was over. By asking for a complete ceasefire Hamas is trying to avoid resumption of conflict.

 

The US proposal stipulates that Israeli forces should withdraw from all “populated” areas. In an interview with Dr Lorenzo Kamel, professor of International History at the University of Turin in Italy, he stated that when a place has been destroyed, which is the case in Gaza where hardly a building has been left standing, those places are no longer classified as populated areas. This means that there is no “populated” place left in Gaza so the Israeli army could remain indefinitely.

 

Antony Blinken’s statements and declarations regarding Israel’s readiness to engage in the plan are by any measure untrue. When finally Benjamin Netanyahu made a ststement on Israel’s stance, he simply reiterated what he has been saying all along, i.e. that it is his intention to continue the war in Gaza until all his war objectives have been realised. Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir have said that if a ceasefire deal were accepted, they would withdraw from the government leaving Netanyahu high and dry in a vulnerable position politically. They also said that since the operation to release four hostages was such a ”resounding success”, (four hostages released and 274 Palestinians killed and over 700 injured) there was no need to reach any kind of deal. Immediately after the resolution was passed, the Israeli representative at the UN said that Israel would continue its war regardless. It is also worth pointing out the Ben Gvir, the Minister for National security, is also an illegal settler!

 

So, when Antony Blinken says that some of Hamas’s proposed amendment are “not workable”, what he really means is that they are not acceptable to Israel for the reasons outlined above.

 

Qatar and Egypt have been the mediators with Hamas, and the US has presented itself as the mediator with Israel. However, how can a country be an objective arbiter or mediator when it is itself supporting the party that it represents with arms and financing? These two roles are incompatible, but this reality does explain Blinken’s attitude throughout this affair.

 

So where does this leave the ordinary people of Palestine? As has been the case for the past 75 years, defenceless and dispossessed. Meanwhile, hospitals continue to be bombed. Over 15,000 children have been killed and over 3,500 children have had one or more limbs amputated. Amputations are now being done without anaesthesia as there is none. What trauma must this leave on the psyche of young children? Caesarean sections are also being carried out without anaesthesia with the risks this entails for both mother and child in an environment where there is little to no sanitation.

 

The bottom line is that Israel does not want to end this war. Why not? Because from the outset in the nineteenth century Zionist policy has stated its aim to possess the whole of historical Palestine with no Palestinians or as few as possible. Hence the massacres we have been seeing over the past eight months are simply a step in that direction.