The set up massacre and the American fingerprint
The quick measures adopted against the Syrian ambassadors and diplomats in the Western capitals reflected the existence of an American signal which accompanied the media and political campaign that surrounded the Houla massacre.
_Firstly, since the beginning, and before any investigations into the lies fabricated by the collaborating gangs dubbed the free army and whose spokesman claimed that what happened was the result of the village’s bombing with tanks, the Syrian state was the object of accusations. Later on, the international observers discovered that the killings were conducted via direct shootings on people’s heads from a close distance, alongside the exposure of a series of facts by Syrian activists supported by a Syrian national investigation, revealing that the massacre was carried out by armed gangs and takfiri terrorist groups coming from Tunisia and Libya among other countries, as well as by terrorist and criminal Syrian groups that include hundred of elements, targeting families that are politically-affiliated with the Syrian state from various sects. The massacres also affected the Houla neighboring villages, while those who were mainly targeted were families related to one of the members of the elected People’s Assembly.
_Secondly, it seems clear, in light of the information which was collected, that the decision to carry out the massacre was adopted in Washington which drew up a plan to exploit it on the political and media levels in parallel to the orders given to the armed gangs. The political timing of the massacre on the eve of Kofi Annan’s visit to the Syrian capital and before the report expected to be presented at the Security Council in regard to his mission, is not the only reason behind the perpetration of the massacre. The actual reason is the attempt to pressure the Russians and Chinese and to undermine the insistence of the Russian and Chinese commands on deterring all the American and Western efforts to produce a resolution at the Security Council, that would pave the way before wide-scale military and security intervention in Syria, in parallel to the Western, Gulf and Turkish determination to sabotage Annan’s mission through the expansion of the circle of violence and by pushing the events towards a bloody stage that would generate sectarian repercussions inside Syrian society. Indeed, the planners are wagering on the fact that these repercussions will reflect on the structure of the Syrian Arab army, the national security institutions and the overall structure of the Syrian national state. All these goals were the reason behind the perpetration of the massacre. Nonetheless, its political impact thwarted the American plans vis-à-vis Russia and China, at a time when the Syrian national state rushed to form an investigation committee and when wide popular positions emerged in support of national unity.
For its part, the Syrian media exposed additional facts, especially when the Syrian national television hosted two eyewitnesses who revealed the involvement of terrorist gangs in the incident. On the other hand, activists posted a video on YouTube and the social communication websites, featuring the picture of one of the main perpetrators of the massacre, revealing his identity and exposing the way the video which was aired by the media war channels was edited to fabricate the false tales on which the Americans and their allies relied.
Thirdly, what confirms the fact that the massacre was carried out based on an American decision to activate the war on Syria and compensate for the ongoing failure to undermine the Syrian state, was the reliable information talking about reports issued by the Western intelligence apparatuses and delivered to a Lebanese security apparatus in Beirut, saying that a major event will take place in Syria and provoke politically-dramatic developments. The Western intelligence apparatus which produced the information relied on the transformation of the Russian position as a result to this incident, which would allow military intervention in Syria under the cover of the Security Council. The Lebanese sides that received the reports a few days prior to the Houla massacre and the campaign which accompanied it, expected one of two scenarios: either a massive suicide-bombing operation carried out by Al-Qaeda cells whose presence in Syria is confirmed by the Western intelligence apparatuses, or an assassination operation, at a time when the Syrian opposition movements have recently been spreading lies and rumors about assassinations targeting senior politicians and military officials in the country. This reveals that the latter goal is featured on the agenda of the Western intelligence apparatuses and the gangs affiliated with them. The shock was major within the Lebanese security circles when it turned out that the massive incident was the massacre which was followed a few hours later by the ousting of the Syrian ambassadors and diplomats in the context of an American domino game. Once again, the failed American empire and its impotent aides are resorting to a fictive war to compensate for the failure and provoke massacres, so that its archenemies are accused of having carried them out. This was previously done by the American intelligence services in Vietnam to ruin the Vietcong and the Hanoi government’s reputation and in El-Salvador via the death brigades throughout many years.
Al-Assad and Zionist retaliation
The campaigns to which President Bashar al-Assad has been subjected in the context of the global war on Syria, reveal the extent of the spite and hatred felt within the American and Western circles towards this young Arab leader, but also the extent of the disgruntlement governing the work of the Zionists that are recruiting all their agents and mobilizing all the capabilities of the Zionist lobby around the world to undermine Al-Assad and demonize his political image before the Syrian, Arab and international public opinion. As to the Saudi-Qatari partnership in targeting Al-Assad, it conveys a hatred that is no less hostile towards President Al-Assad among Saudi Arabia’s and Qatar’s rulers. Nonetheless, the main action is being conducted by Israel’s leaders and the leaders of Zion around the world.
Firstly, since 2000, the role played by President Bashar al-Assad within the Arab group relied on embracing the Palestinian cause, supporting the resistance movements and thwarting all the American and Israeli plans to eliminate these movements and liquidate the Palestinian’s right of return. This was clearly seen during the Arab summit held in Beirut in 2000, back when – in partnership with former Lebanese President Emile Lahoud- Al-Assad imposed a clause confirming the right of return in the so-called Arab peace initiative. By doing so, he went against the American and Gulf will that wanted the initiative to constitute an official Arab authorization for the liquidation of the right of return and the encouragement of a deal between the Israeli government and the Palestinian authority ending the Arab-Israeli conflict in favor of Zionism and its projects, but also in favor of American-Western hegemony over the region.
Secondly, on the eve of Iraq’s invasion and during the Sharm al-Sheikh summit, President Bashar al-Assad issued a warning to the Arab public opinion against the American empire and its colonial project which is dedicated to protecting Israel and imposing its control. Since the first day of the American invasion, Al-Assad embraced the idea of resistance against the occupation in Iraq and publically boasted his support to the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine. And when he was visited by Colin Powell who was carrying the American conditions of submission and enticing offers to render him the most prominent American friend among the Arab leaders if he were to accept the liquidation of the Lebanese resistance, Syria’s disengagement from Iran and the imposition of a siege on the Palestinian resistance, Al-Assad chose to be the only president among all the heads of states around the world to dare confront the American empire at the peak of its strength, i.e. at a time when a superpower such as France was submissive to it and when major states such as Russia and China were avoiding any clashes with it. International Zionism, which led Bush’s wars and drew up the American imperialistic projects thus started to consider Al-Assad its number one enemy.
Thirdly, following the blow addressed to Colin Powell, American-Zionist-Gulf plans were drawn up to target Al-Assad. The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri was the first facet of this targeting, in the face of which Al-Assad stood fast and resisted with great strength. And when the July war erupted in the context of this plan to strike the Lebanese resistance via a global alliance led by the United States and was humored by Russia and China, President Bashar al-Assad was adopting a historical decision to support the Lebanese resistance without any limits and by all means necessary. That day, he ordered the Syrian Arab army to prepare to engage in war in three cases: if Israel were to expand its operations towards the Syrian territories, if the army of the enemy were to advance towards West Bekaa and in case the command of the resistance were to ask the Syrian partner and ally to intervene and alleviate the pressures on it by opening the Golan front.
Fourthly, as much as the American and Israeli planners know that the Syrian strength was a main and a major partner in the defeat of the American invasion of Iraq and the failure of the Israeli war in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, they are still targeting President Bashar al-Assad who has adopted the liberation option, is a popular leader in Syria and the Arab region, and constitutes a symbol of independence and resistance. Therefore, following their defeat, they assigned the Turkish and Qatari governments, as well as Sarkozy government, to offer enticements and set traps to achieve compromise with President Al-Assad over his principles. But all the attempts and offers failed to lead Al-Assad and Syria towards the other bank, i.e. the camp of Western hegemony and normalization with Israel, because this leader and commander is respecting the pulse of the Syrian people and is aware of Syria’s actual interests in the near and distant future. Through the partnerships and regional and international networks he established, Al-Assad has placed Syria among the influential states on the world’s map, which is perceived by the Israelis as being a real existential threat in light of Syria’s pivotal role at the heart of the resistance system and at the level of the strategic deterrence equations it controls.
Is there anything alarming?
The positions aiming at giving us the impression that something has changed at the level of the elements surrounding the Syrian crisis, without offering any palpable evidence to confirm these claims, are escalating, and I do not believe there is reason for concern in light of the following factors:
What appears to be a control imposed by the armed men on the field and their perpetration of killings and attacks, does not change the fact that the army is strong and unified and that its non-settlement of the situation once and for all is due to the fact that it did not receive instructions to continue its efforts in light of the presence of the observers’ mission.
The people’s restlessness and pessimism does not convey change at the level of their positions towards the armed opposition. Furthermore, a field research carried out by Top News correspondents assured there is fear towards and not conviction in the options of the armed men.
The ousting of the ambassadors to threaten with a military option is obstructed at the Security Council, in the absence of any change at the level of the Russian and Chinese positions.
There are no new pressure cards to allow the armed opposition movements to expand their influence, such as the dispatch of international troops or the use of the Syrian airspace by the observers.
There is no political process available other than dialogue and the ballot boxes, while all the other talk is mere nonsense to lift the destroyed morale.
“Al-Assad will not fall and will remain in power for years.” These were the estimates carried by the Israeli newspapers issued this week in regard to the developments affecting the file of the political crisis in Syria. On the other hand, and in a surprising step, the papers tackled the Israeli government’s surrender of the corpses of 91 Palestinian martyrs to the Palestinian authority, after they were killed in conformations with the Israeli army or during the perpetration of operations inside the occupied territories. In regard to the Iranian nuclear file, Yediot Aharonot revealed that senior security officials in Israel, in addition to a number of ministers, opposed any military strike against Iran, assuring that this position towards the attack targeting the Iranian nuclear facilities was growing stronger by the day. On the security level, the papers mentioned the acute shortage affecting the number of regular soldiers and elements carrying out compulsory military service in Israel, adding that fifteen commanders of reservist military units surrendered harsh letters cautioning that the Israeli army was not ready for any upcoming war.
Nasrallah’s salvation project
Ever since the announcement of the kidnapping of the Lebanese pilgrims in Syria, many politicians, experts and analysts expressed admiration towards the trust that is growing deeper between the people and supporters of the resistance on the one hand, and its leaders and symbols on the other. This was clearly seen when the people abstained from blocking the roads and carrying out rowdy actions against some Syrian workers. Indeed, all these practices stopped right after Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered a speech in this regard.
Firstly, the extreme discipline shown by the families of the kidnapped expresses the extent of their faith, national commitment and renewed confidence in a command which achieved historical victories through sacrifice and dedication in favor of the causes of the people and the country. Nasrallah’s speech on the anniversary of Imam Khomeini death, conveyed his wisdom, stringency and courage in adopting the options that can protect Lebanon against the danger of strife and embody the national and nationalistic principles. There is no doubt that while addressing the kidnappers, the Sayyed conveyed the sentiments of the people and the families who are eagerly awaiting their sons but continued to reject any form of offense targeting the symbol of resistance and dignity in responding to the claims and demands of the Syrian opposition movements, starting with Borhan Ghalioun and ending with many elements belonging to the gangs of killing and terrorism in Syria. The families were thus very pleased when the Sayyed placed the case in the hands of the Lebanese state and its officials, calling on the kidnappers to choose the path to resolve the dispute, whether peacefully or through war, while leaving the innocent people outside their conflict with the resistance and its command.
Secondly, in his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah put forward a historical and qualitative project to resolve the Lebanese crisis. This was an unprecedented initiative in Lebanon’s modern history, presented by a leader wishing to uphold the country’s stability and civil peace, to develop its political system and build a modern state. He thus proposed the election of a constituent council in order to produce a peaceful and democratic mechanism based on dialogue, allowing the overcoming of the consecutive crises and wars which resulted from the Lebanese system since independence on the beat of regional and international conflicts and axes. This constituent council, elected far away from any sectarian quotas and on foundations agreed on via dialogue, is the revolutionary and democratic step that would place Lebanon on the road towards salvation. At the level of the timing, he wanted to present the initiative in the face of the climate of tensions and instigations whose threats are detected by all and that is feared to transform into a cycle of violence that might drown the country and destroy the state through sectarian and denominational infighting. The political initiative put forward by Sayyed Nasrallah prior to the dialogue session is the only ray of hope amid the tensions and the escalation campaigns being launched by the March 14 forces and the irresponsible behavior adopted by their media institutions to provoke strife in the context of the ongoing involvement in the war on Syria.
The case of the eleven Lebanese nationals who were kidnapped in Syria remained the object of conflicting information and numerous rumors, amid ongoing contacts to ensure their release carried out by Hezbollah’s and Amal’s commands and Lebanese officials with the officials in the concerned regional states. On the other hand, a private Iraqi jet coming from Baghdad and carrying thirty people, including nine Lebanese wounded with four in a very critical condition, arrived to the Beirut International Airport. The latter were the victims of an explosion in the Iraqi Al-Ramadi area. Speaker Nabih Berri assured An-Nahar that the kidnapped were still alive, saying on another note to As-Safir: “The efforts are ongoing to ensure the release of the kidnaped.” Berri then called on their families and on all the Lebanese to disregard the rumors being leaked by this or that side, warning against the intentions of some to provoke mayhem and strife by shifting the direction of this issue and rendering it a purely Lebanese one.
Prime Minister Najib Mikati stated to As-Safir for his part: “We are proceeding with our contacts with all the parties and what we can say to the families is that their children are fine and safe.” On the other hand, a group called Syria’s rebels in Rif Aleppo claimed responsibility for the kidnapping of the Lebanese pilgrims, confirmed they were safe, published pictures of their passports and put forward conditions which included the release of oppositionists detained by the regime and Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s apology for his last speech. International envoy Kofi Annan arrived to Beirut and spoke with President Michel Suleiman and Speaker Nabih Berri about the Lebanese and Syrian concerns, especially the smuggling of weapons and armed men across the border between the two countries and the repercussions of these activities on domestic stability. President of the Republic Michel Suleiman called on the various parties to participate in the national dialogue on Monday 11 June at the Baabda Palace. The invitation limited dialogue to the discussion of the issue of the national defensive strategy, including the handling of the weapons issue from three facets:
The weapons of the resistance and the ways to positively use them to defend Lebanon and answer the following questions: Why are they used? When? How? And where?
The Palestinian weapons outside the camps and the ways to end their presence and the Palestinian weapons inside the camps and the ways to deal with them based on the decision of the national dialogue conference.
The removal of the weapons spread inside and outside the cities.
In this regard, Prime Minister Mikati said to As-Safir that the mere call for dialogue and the setting of its agenda was an excellent initiative in itself, hoping that everyone will cooperate with the call of the president of the republic and assuring that the experience has shown to all the parties that there was no alternative for dialogue.
Head of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea stated: “The starting point for a new dialogue would be by seeing the resignation of the current government, the formation of a neutral government and Hassan Nasrallah’s voicing of his intentions to discuss the weapons issue based on his conviction that there can be no weapons outside the context of the Lebanese state
New Orient News