Bashar al-Assad's strange definition of a cease fire
If there's anyone out there who still wonders why Israel has never been able to reach a 'peace agreement' with the Assad's, please consider Bashar al-Assad's definition of a cease fire.
"Regarding a ceasefire, a halt to operations, if it happened, it
doesn't mean that each party will stop using weapons," Assad said in
Damascus in televised comments.
"A ceasefire means in the first place halting the terrorists from
strengthening their positions. Movement of weapons, equipment or
terrorists, or fortification of positions, will not be allowed," he
said.
Oh, of course. Why would I think otherwise? Silly me....
Moadim l'Simcha - a happy holiday to all of you. (The proper answer to that greeting is 'Chagim u'Zmanim l'Sasson' - which means holidays and times for joy).
Russian President Vladimir Putin is blaming Israel for Syria's possession of weapons of mass destruction.
According to AFP, Putin said that Syria had developed chemical weapons "as an alternative to the nuclear weapons of Israel."
The
Russian president claimed that the "the technical advantage of Israel
-- we need to say this directly -- is such that it doesn't need nuclear
weapons. Israel is already in a technical military sense several heads
above the countries in the region."
Putin added that "nuclear weapons just make it a target. They just create foreign policy problems."
What a load of you-know-what. Is it Israel's fault that Bashar al-Assad has followed in his father's footsteps and used chemical weapons on his own people? If they were developed as an 'alternative to the nuclear weapons of Israel,' why is Assad using them to attack his own people?
Moreover, did it ever occur to Putin that maybe the only reason that the Assad's never used their chemical weapons against Israel is because they knew that if they did, they would find themselves back in the 8th century?
Does Putin believe that Russia's nuclear weapons make him a target?
Aren't you Americans glad that Putz Obama let this guy live another day?
But the West is wrong to think it has no good options. It has a
superb and just option, one that will let history unfold as it should
have long ago. That option — to break up Syria into coherent nations —
was proposed earlier this summer by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger in a gathering at the Ford School.
“First of all,
Syria is not a historic state. It was created in its present shape in
1920, and it was given that shape in order to facilitate the control of
the country by France,” he began, explaining the root of the present
crisis.
“Secondly, it’s a country that is divided into many
ethnic groups, a multiplicity of ethnic groups, and that means that an
election doesn’t give you the same results as in the United States
because every ethnic group votes for its own people … Moreover these
ethnic groups are very antagonistic to each other. You have Kurds,
Druzes, Alawites, Sunnis and 10 to 12 Christian ethnic groups.”
The
notion that these groups could ever get together and form a coalition
government, as proposed in the Western media, is not only unrealistic
but “inconceivable,” says Kissinger. “On the whole it is an ethnic and
sectarian country… it is now a civil war between sectarian groups.”
Kissinger
believes Syria should and will break up in some fashion — indeed, the
independent-minded Kurds have already created a de facto state with a
potent military, the Druze have their own militias and Assad’s ruling
Alawites, in preparation for a retreat to their traditional homelands
should they lose the civil war, have heavily fortified Alawite
territory. This break up, sooner rather than later, is Kissinger’s
preferred outcome yet the West is misguidedly acting to thwart it.
Plan
A for the West, President Obama explained this week, would be “a shot
across the bow” — limited bombing to teach Assad a lesson while allowing
him to remain in power. This plan, many believe, not only risks a
larger war by a panicked Assad but also could backfire by enhancing
Assad’s stature at home and in the Arab world, in that he could claim to
have withstood an attack by the combined colonial powers.
So
what would the effect be if the Western nations chose neither the
do-nothing option nor a risky military attack but adopted instead a
Kissinger-inspired Plan B — a principled declaration that they favour a
division of Syria into its constituent nations, starting with an
independent Kurdish state in what is now Syrian Kurdistan?
Without
dropping a single bomb, this declaration would create a win for the
Kurds, a pro-Western people who are also one of the largest ethnic
groups in the world without a state of their own. It would create a win
for the West, who would now have a pro-Western state in what has long
been hostile territory. It would create a humiliating loss for Assad,
who would be seen to have presided over the dismemberment of his
country. And most importantly in meeting the West’s immediate security
needs, it would send a chill through Iran’s mullahs, who have to date
been impervious to Western boycotts and other attempts to end Iran’s
drive for nuclear weapons. Iran, which has Kurds of its own along with
other restive minorities, would now contemplate the prospect of the
dismemberment of its own state – Iran’s dominant Persians represent only
about 60% of the country’s population. A Western declaration of support
for Iran’s Kurdish minority would deter the mullahs as nothing else
has.
Well, yeah. But for the United States' word to mean something, wouldn't they have to be seen as willing to back it up?
Hmmm... Israel acceded to Syrian request to hold fire in Golan
A report filed with the United Nations Security Council by the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) on Friday indicates that the IDF acceded to a request by the Assad regime to hold its fire during Thursday's tank battle between government and rebel forces.
American journalist Nabil Abi Saab, who regularly covers United Nations activity in his blog UN-Report, on Saturday posted a copy of a document
apparently from the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force
(UNDOF), which monitors the ceasefire between Israel and Syria following
the 1973 Yom Kippur.
Saab writes in his blog that he was
informed by diplomats that the document was sent to the UN Security
Council on Friday, by Herve Ladsous, UN Under Secretary General for
Peacekeeping Operations. The report states that the IDF warned UNDOF that it would "take action" if Syrian army tanks continued to operate in the buffer zone.
After
receiving the message, the Syria regime asked that Israel refrain from
firing on its vehicles as "the presence of the tanks was solely for the
purpose of fighting the armed members of the opposition." Israel acceded
to the request, but did confirm that it had given medical treatment to
members of the Syria opposition wounded in the fighting.
The battle at the Quneitra crossing ended Thursday with the Syria regime regaining full control of the area.
Forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad have been fighting for
more than two years against the opposition that is determined to unseat
him. More than 80,000 people are reported to have died since the
fighting began in early 2011.
What Assad doesn't get - or perhaps he gets it but refuses to act on or acknowledge it - is that all Israel really wants is to be left to live in peace. If he and his father had sought to work with Israel for the last 40 years rather than constantly being on the verge of trying to destroy it, the entire relationship between the two countries could have been different.
UN 'human rights council' calls for turning more innocent civilians over to Syrian army
The Syrian army has been responsible for the murder of more than 70,000 Syrians over the past two years. Yet, the United Nations 'human rights council' has decided that Israel should turn the Golan Heights over to the Syrian army so that thousands more can be murdered.
With Syrian rebels deciding that one of the things they need to 'correct' about the Assad regime is its inaction on the Golan Heights for the last 40 years, the IDF has gone on high alert in the area.
In a video posted Saturday on the Internet by Syrian opposition forces, the rebels are seen in the Syrian side of the Golan Heights DMZ, firing guns right next to a U.N. sign specifically stating the area is a demilitarized zone. Another, similar video shows the rebel forces traveling in a vehicle within the DMZ, with a spokesperson saying, “We are now in front of the occupied Golan, the blessed land sold by [former President] Hafez Assad. “For 40 years, not a single gunshot has been fired on this land. For 40 years not a single gunshot has been fired towards Israel,” the rebel spokesman added.
Last week’s kidnapping of 21 United Nations Filipino peacekeeping soldiers within the DMZ by a group of 30 rebels made it clear that era is over. Member nations are more skittish about allowing their troops, who carry light arms only, to remain in what is now clearly a danger zone.
Meanwhile Israeli troops are providing security for military engineers and private contractors who are rushing to complete Israel’s new northern border security fence. New alarm systems armed with a special fiber that activates at the slightest touch are being added to the fence.
Additional troops have been sent to back up the Golani Brigade, select special forces, the Oketz combat canine unit, and artillery forces already on the Heights who are constantly patrolling the area.
The barrier fence is being installed as an extra layer of security in the chaos that is expected to follow the probable fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Syrian rebel forces – many of whom are hostile to Israel – are advancing towards the Golan Heights, military sources have said, and are threatening to retake the region from Israel.
We're really becoming one big, walled-in ghetto, aren't we? Just a little bit bigger than the ghettos of the past....
I meant to run this last week and did not get to it - thanks to Steven S for sending it in again. Israel bought - yes bought - the Golan Heights from the father and uncle of Bashar al-Assad for $100 million before the Six Day war started.
Jame’, a member of the first Consultative Council in Egypt, said, “One morning Sadat took me with him in private and without a guard to the (Syrian part of the) Golan Heights, and I swear by the Almighty G-d that he put his hand on my shoulder and as we were standing on the Golan Heights, he told me literally, ‘Look, Mahmoud, this is the Golan. Can any power seize it so easily, even if it is Israel?”
Sadat’s friend replied, “This is impossible,” and Sadat replied, “I will tell you a dangerous secret – the Golan Heights were purchased by Israel for $100 million. The check was received by both Hafez and Rifa'at al-Assad and deposited in their accounts in a Swiss bank.”
In return, Hafez Assad ordered the Syrian forces to withdraw immediately from the Golan Heights in the June 1967 war without firing a single shot and handing it over to Israel, Jame’ continued. The facts tell a different story.
“This story and my testimony of this event, has been kept secret for many years until 1999, when I alluded in the book ‘I Knew Sadat’ to the incident without revealing the full details.
“In 2006, when I was hosted by Almihwar channel, I provided the full details frankly, to the extent that even Moataz was stunned.
“The next day, Almihwar hosted Mr. Amin Gemayel, Lebanon’s former president, and the subject was raised with him. He supported my words. Then the Beirut-based Future channel tried to invite me to Beirut to discuss the subject, but I apologized, and refused.”
Syrian sources told Albawaba that Jame’s claim is “baseless" and part of a campaign to smear Assad.
I don't think it's accurate to say that the Syrians withdrew without firing a shot in 1967, and that was certainly not the case in 1973, but since when do the Syrians keep agreements?
Could the end of Assad lead to a compromise on the Golan?
Eyal Zisser has a lengthy analysis of what the success of the Syrian uprising might mean for Israel. I urge you to read the whole thing. I want to particularly call your attention to this:
The Syrian regime should be considered a strategic threat to Israel because Bashar al-Assad has sought to develop nuclear capabilities. He provided support to Hamas and Hizbullah - not the kind of support his father used to give them, but strategic support which turned Hizbullah into a major strategic threat to Israel. Bashar was the one who brought the Iranians to Syria and to the region. The Iranians had been present, but only as guests. Now they are in a different position and the alliance became closer. At the same time, Bashar maintained quiet on the Golan Heights border and said he wanted to sign a peace agreement with Israel.
The Syrian ruler came to the conclusion that having a nuclear capability was what saved the North Korean regime, and that what enabled the Americans to attack Saddam Hussein was the fact that he did not have a nuclear option. A different Syrian regime may not have the economic resources and the intimate links to North Korea and Iran, and might not feel the need for a nuclear capability. It could be that Syria under a new regime will be different than Syria under the Assad dynasty. Hafez al-Assad, with Western help, was able to turn Syria - a small, backward state - into a regional power. Take the Assad dynasty out of the equation and Syria will remain an important state geographically, but not the regional power it was before.
As for peace with Israel, there was something personal in the Syrian demand for an Israeli withdrawal to the shoreline of the Sea of Galilee because Hafez al-Assad, as defense minister, was the one who lost the war in 1967. If you remove the Assad dynasty from the equation, perhaps the Syrian stance will become more flexible.
If they don't overthrow Assad, we'll never find out, but it certainly might make things easier if the retrieval of the Golan were not a personal crusade of the Syrian leader.
Troops acting on behalf of the man whom Hillary Clinton called a 'reformer' and 'capable of change' four months ago massacred at least 121 people in Hama on Sunday (ignore the number in the video).
Let's go to the videotape.
Notice that in Syria. when they start firing, everyone ducks for cover.
Here's another one. Let's go to the videotape.
Were they firing from the minaret of a holy mosque? Can you imagine what would happen in the 'Muslim street' if American or Israeli troops used a mosque as a base from which to fire? Can anyone translate the Arabic?
Syrian forces killed at least 121 civilians and wounded hundreds in major tank assaults on Hama and other cities that began at dawn on Sunday to crush pro-democracy demonstrations.
Tanks stormed Hama after besieging it for nearly a month in response to some of the biggest protests against President Bashar Al Assad’s rule.
Several observers wondered if Mr. Assad was truly in charge of the situation. Some suggested that his brother, Maher, may be leading the assault against pro-democracy protesters. Maher is known for her personal brutality and intolerance of dissent.
WHO were these 'observers'? How many of them work for the US State Department?
One of the residents, a doctor, said there were 51 people wounded at Badr hospital alone, which was running short of blood for transfusions. He said tanks had surrounded another main hospital, Al Horani.
“Tanks are attacking from four directions. They are firing their heavy machineguns randomly and overrunning makeshift road blocks erected by the inhabitants,” he said by phone, the sound of machinegun fire crackling in the background.
Another resident said snipers had climbed onto the roofs of the state-owned electricity company and the main prison, and that electricity had been cut in eastern neighborhoods.
You'd think they were fighting against a military target that could fight back or something. Here's another video.
Let's go to the videotape.
And here's another one. Let's go to the videotape.
The only changes from Hafez al-Assad to Bashar al-Assad are the first names, and the use of guns and tanks instead of the 'cleaner' poisonous gas.'
Meanwhile, in Libya, the Obama administration is backing a group that is smuggling arms to Hamas.
In Lebanon, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has taken a page out of his father, Hafez's playbook. He's playing Prime Minister Saad Hariri off against Hezbullah.
According to Lebanese observers familiar with the Syrian regime’s thinking, Assad never intended to end the crisis in Lebanon , he reportedly used the Saudi -Syrian dialogue as a cover for Syria’s comeback to Lebanon and for this reason the Saudi Syrian efforts failed and so did the Qatari-Turkish efforts .
The observers believe that Assad all along wanted the crisis in Lebanon to escalate and to lead to a Muslim Sunni- Shiite strife in order for him to justify sending his troops as the savior for Lebanon , just like his father did in 1976 when he occupied Lebanon until 2005 (following the assassination of former PM Rafik Hariri ) when Syrian troops had to withdraw under Lebanese and US pressure.
In an address to the Lebanese people Caretaker Prime Minsiter Saad Hariri said he decided to maintain his candidacy for premiership and accused the Iranian backed Hezbollah led opposition of trying to kick him out of political life .
He said he made one sacrifice after another but the opposition always wanted more and “unfortunately the Saudi Syrian efforts failed ”
MP Walid Jumblatt was told by Hariri prior to his meeting last Saturday with the Syrian president : “They want me to surrender and present concession after concession … on top of that they have a gun pointed to my head,” he was quoted as saying.
Hariri also reportedly told Jumblatt that the opposition cannot be counted on in respecting agreements, as proven through its violation of the Doha agreement when the opposition ministers resigned from Cabinet.
There is no reason for Hezbollah to celebrate according to the observers because :
- Under no circumstances will Syria allow Hezbollah to completely control Lebanon for security reasons. Complete control of Lebanon will spell disaster for Syrian security , because any war between Israel and Hezbollah will mean a war on Syria too
- Once Hezbollah is in complete control of Lebanon then Iran will be in full control of the country and Syria will lose its only card in negotiating a peace agreement with Israel to regain control of the Golan Heights .
- Just like his father(the late Hafez Assad) , Bashar will invade Lebanon and his target will be ….yes Hezbollah as his father targeted his former allies the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1976.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
