Give the New York Times credit
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Tuesday, February 26.
1) Why are they staying away?
Yesterday the New York Times reported Syrian Opposition’s Complaints Shadow Kerry’s First Official Trip:
Mr. Kerry and foreign ministers from Europe and the Middle East are
scheduled to meet in Rome on Thursday with opponents of President Bashar
al-Assad of Syria, including Sheik Ahmad Moaz al-Khatib, who leads the
opposition. But they are threatening to boycott the conference to
protest what they see as fainthearted international support.
To try to rescue the meeting, Robert S. Ford, the American ambassador to
Syria and chief envoy to the opposition, was sent to Cairo on Sunday to
implore opposition leaders to attend the session in Rome.
Today, the Times reports Kerry Vows Not to Leave Syria Rebels ‘Dangling in the Wind’:
After the Syrian opposition signaled that it would boycott the Rome
conference to protest what it sees as negligible help from Western
nations, Mr. Kerry called Moaz al-Khatib, the leader of the Syrian
opposition coalition, and persuaded him to attend. Vice President Joseph
R. Biden called Mr. Khatib later to thank him for agreeing to go and to
emphasize the importance of the meeting.
American officials have said that their goal in supporting the Syrian
resistance is to build up its leverage in the hope that Mr. Assad will
agree to yield power and a political transition can be negotiated to end
the nearly two-year-old conflict.
Why does it appear that the Syrian rebels are reticent to meet with the
new Secretary of State? Could it be that it wasn't so long ago, that
then Sen. Kerry was pretty close with Syrian President Assad? Phillip Smyth sent me links to two news stories.
In 2009 the Associate Press reported Kerry to travel to Syria to meet Assad:
Kerry spokesman Frederick Jones said Wednesday that the senator will
be part of a congressional delegation headed to the Middle East,
stopping in both Israel and Syria. Jones called the meeting planned
between Kerry and Assad "part of a continuing dialogue he's had with the
Jones said the Obama administration is aware of Kerry's plans, and the State Department is helping arrange the trip.
Kerry traveled to Syria in late 2006 where he said he told Assad he had
serious concerns about the flow of "money, weapons and terrorists"
through the country into Iraq and Lebanon. Other senators, including
Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, made similar trips despite the
Bush administration saying such visits were inappropriate.
And in 2010 the AP reported U.S. Sen. Kerry: Syria is committed to peace:
United States Senator John Kerry said Thursday that Syria is
committed to achieving peace in the Middle East and is essential to the
Kerry's very public support of Assad and his good intention may not make
him the ideal interlocutor with Syrian rebels. Briefly that's the point
Jonathan Schanzer makes here.
“Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,” Kerry said.
However, the Democratic senator, who is the chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters after a three-hour meeting
with Syiran President Bashar Assad in Damascus that Washington is
concerned about the flow of weapons from Syria to Lebanese militant
2) To what end
The New York Times is reporting Saudis Step Up Help for Rebels in Syria With Croatian Arms:
Saudi Arabia has financed a large purchase of infantry weapons from
Croatia and quietly funneled them to antigovernment fighters in Syria in
a drive to break the bloody stalemate that has allowed President Bashar
al-Assad to cling to power, according to American and Western officials
familiar with the purchases.
In the Wall Street Journal, Rachel Kleinfield makes the case for (America) arming the Syrian rebels (available in full through the link here.):
The action also signals the recognition among the rebels’ Arab and
Western backers that the opposition’s success in pushing Mr. Assad’s
military from much of Syria’s northern countryside by the middle of last
year gave way to a slow, grinding campaign in which the opposition
remains outgunned and the human costs continue to climb.
Washington’s role in the shipments, if any, is not clear. Officials in
Europe and the United States, including those at the Central
Intelligence Agency, cited the sensitivity of the shipments and declined
to comment publicly.
Why arm Syrian rebels? Let's start with Iran. The faster Syrian
dictator Bashar Assad falls, the faster Iran loses its closest ally in
the region and its main conduit for shipping weapons to terrorist groups
that attack Israel and other U.S. allies. A Syria without Assad will
further isolate Iran and could help force it to the nuclear negotiating
Second, the war in Syria is destabilizing an already volatile region.
Armed conflict has spilled into Iraq and Turkey. Refugees are creating
tension in Jordan, Lebanon and other neighboring states. Syria's
chemical weapons are hard to track—and the longer the civil war rages,
the greater the risk that Assad will use them on his own people, or that
they end up in the hands of terrorists.
Meanwhile, the rebels aren't waiting for Washington to decide. They are
getting arms where they can—often from private individuals and Gulf
countries that support the most radical Islamists within the rebel
Jonathan Spyer, just returned from a reporting trip to Syria tells Ricochet:
Judith: So is it a foregone conclusion that a victorious rebellion will mean an Islamist Syria?
Jonathan: Well, I think it is more and more looking that way now.
I’m not sure if that was the case right at the beginning. To some
degree, what’s happened now -- and I stress to some degree, I don’t want
to say this is the whole picture, but to some degree what’s happening
now is the result of Western policy. The United States clearly wanted to
stay out of the whole issue of the Syrian revolution and then the
Syrian civil war. What it hoped to do, what it has done, is to
effectively contract out the job of arming and supporting the Syrian
insurgency to regional players, specifically the kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. It’s not surprising, then, that if you
contract out the arming of the insurgency to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
Turkey, what you will get will be an Islamist insurgency. Those will be
the kinds of elements which those countries will feel most inclined to
support. And that is indeed what they have done, with the result that
the insurgency is now very much dominated by Islamists and it’s hard to
see, if the rebellion wins, any result other than the emergence of an
Islamist Syria of one type or another.
I want to stress that that’s only part of the picture. I don’t want to
say that only outside forces have brought this about. Because we must
understand I think also that we are living through a particular
historical moment in which Sunni Islamism is having its day in country
after country across the region. In Egypt, and Tunisia; among the
Palestinians, and also in Syria. To a certain extent there’s sort of a
bottom -- a from-below dynamic here as well. The Islamists have proved
to be the most determined fighters. They’ve proved to be the ones most
willing to make sacrifices, and they’ve also proved to be among the most
honest and non-corrupt of the fighting elements. And as a result of all
that, plus the money from outside, both organizations and individuals
have gravitated towards them. With the result that the Islamists now
very much dominate the military scene among the rebels, and also the
It isn't clear from the New York Times report if the United States is,
in any way, involved in facilitating the Saudi arms shipments, though
the denials suggest that it is. But will helping the rebels allow the
United States to influence them in any way? It doesn't appear so.
3) Ceasefire broken
In the past when a Hamas rocket has been fired into Israel the media use
language to describe it as "endangering the ceasefire." So let's give
the New York Times credit for calling it like it is: Rocket From Gaza Hits Israel, Breaking Cease-Fire:
The Israeli police and military reported that a single Grad rocket
landed in a road outside the city of Ashkelon, causing damage but no
The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the military wing of the Palestinians’
Fatah faction, said in an e-mailed statement that it had fired the
rocket in "an initial natural response to the assassination of prisoner
Arafat Jaradat," a 30-year-old Palestinian who died in an Israeli jail
on Saturday. The statement also said that Palestinians "should resist
their enemy with all available means."
Palestinian officials have blamed Mr. Jaradat’s death on what they
described as "severe torture" during interrogation after his arrest Feb.
21 for throwing rocks at Israeli settlers in November. The Israeli
authorities said that an autopsy conducted on Sunday could not determine
the cause of death and that the bruising and broken ribs the
Palestinians cited as evidence of torture could have been caused by
When the PA incites against Israel, many ignore it. Here, whether or
not Abbas told the "military wing" of Fatah to attack or not, his
charges - and those echoed my many PA officials - certainly played a
role in encouraging this attack. Hamas is calling the report of the
rocket "lies," suggesting that they're scared of the consequences.
Labels: Bashar al-Assad, Fatah, Free Syrian Army, Gaza, John Kerry, Middle East Media Sampler, New York Times, rockets, Saudi Arabia, Soccer Dad, Syrian uprising