Disinformation Regarding Syria and Putin

There is an impressive amount of dubious information circulating in both Brazilian and global media regarding the situation unfolding in Syria. Everything indicates that this disinformation is part of an enduring and well-developed plan on the part of a notorious enemy of this Arab nation - Israel. It involves artful dissemination of a deformed, hostile political image of Syria (an ally of Iran), rapidly adhered to by the United States and its European puppets, a little unsophisticated when compared with Israeli strategists. It should be noted that nothing happens in the Middle East that could affect Israel in some way without the knowledge of its information and security agencies (the word “security” being used here in its most wide-ranging sense).

American and European interests, without the slightest ethical concern or sense of justice, distort the reality of a country and its leader, Bashar Assad, describing him as an “enemy” of his own people. They intend to reach this objective through mere daily repetition, counting on receptive, poorly-informed ears and eyes. Up to now they have been successful, given that, unlike its opponents, Syria does not have access to a rich and powerful media or the international press. Most editors of magazines and newspapers are not willing to risk contradicting their bosses.

At the present time, solely Putin courageously defends the Syrian president who studied to be a peaceful ophthalmologist, but ended up as the successor of his father, when his brother (chosen to take the place of his father in the future) died in an automobile accident. For reasons of filial duty, he abandoned medicine and, with the passage of time, came to be marked as the “killer” of his own people, much to the convenience of his enemies. In highly complex, multifaceted political situations, there is always some kind of material available to describe politicians according to “customer” preference.

Assad a “killer”, why? Because, with evident risk to his own life (remember the lynching of Gaddafi?), he defends his mandate as president of Syria, elected in two referendums (2000 and 2007) and an election (2010)? “Killer”, because he defends the sovereignty of his country? Because he refuses to renounce his post, obeying his aforementioned foreign enemies? “Killer”, because an unknown percentage of Syrian citizens, in the vast and vague “Arab Spring”, generically demanded more democracy in the always highly unstable Middle East?

Ask yourself: prior to mass international “hostilization” and the economic siege against Bashar Assad, by the USA and its discrete political advisor, Israel, did the Americans, by chance, show any concern for consulting the Syrian population in order to ascertain whether the majority were in favor of Assad’s exit? If such a question had been asked, the evidence indicates that the reply would be negative.

By the way, in Brazil, which is now home to thousands of Syrian refugees, two or three institutes dedicated to public opinion polls would do well to consult these refugees regarding their degree of approval or rejection of Assad before his opponents “require” his exit in the name of democracy. Of course it is clear that now, after all hell has broken loose in the country, nobody wants to remain in Syria any longer. Not due to fear of Assad, but fear of what will happen after he is gone.
I would even go so far as to say that if the Syrians who are currently in chaotic flight throughout the world, fleeing from the terrifying Islamic State, were asked whether they lived relatively happily during the government of Bashar Assad, prior to the “Arab Spring”, the reply would be favorable to the “tyrant”. This is due to the fact that the “tyrant” had been driving the country in the direction of modernity and secularism, separating state and religion and progressively diminishing the significant influence of the most negative aspect of Islamism. This religion also has a spiritually comforting positive side, although it has lately shown an irrational, intolerant and pitiless facet. This is represented by the so-called Islamic State or ISIS, the simple mention of which sends a shiver down the spine of more sensitive people.

It is known that, in the not so distant past, Catholics and Protestants killed one another in Europe. This came to a definitive end many decades ago. Today, in terms of violence, the notorious Islamic State outclasses all the most violent religions of the past added together. No other uses such a practice as slow decapitation with a knife, sometimes wielded by fanaticized children, as already reported and shown on television.

The terror spread by ISIS is so deep-rooted that hardened military men, of all countries, are afraid to become involved in ground combat with these terrorists. The explanation is simple: in normal, more or less “civilized” wars, captured soldiers are under the protection of international treaties, preserving their lives and physical integrity. This does not occur in the case of the Islamic State. Prisoners of war can be decapitated or summarily executed with a shot in the back of the head, or even something worse. If surrounded, they would prefer to kill themselves prior to the onset of their own personal martyrdom. It is surprising that, according to recent reports, Russian veterans who fought in East Ukraine have volunteered to assist the Syrian army, on the ground, in the fight against the Islamic State, which does not hide its intent to terrorize.

Does any fool imagine that, with the deposition and flight of Assad (he will have to flee rapidly, if he does not want to be killed in the cruelest of manners), Syria will suddenly begin to enjoy true democracy? Is it really to be believed that there will be gentlemanly power sharing between the “moderate” Syrian opposition, “gentle” Al-Qaeda combatants, “amiable” members of the Islamic State, American soldiers, Israeli advisors, the Kurds, Hezbollah fighters and everything else imaginable in that region known for its “tolerance”? For the United States, Syria would be an Iraq in triplicate, which it would not be able to govern. For this reason, it is going to regret the bad guidance received. A further, confused American mire in overseas policy is foreseeable if the rendition of Assad occurs.

With regard to the Syrian opposition, every country, irrespective of whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy, has an opposition, that’s normal. Did the opposition by any chance represent the majority of the population prior to the “Arab Spring”? Nobody knows. From that which I am able to deduce, through reasonable daily accompaniment of what is happening in the world, the answer appears to be no. There had been no formal or informal poll of the degree of internal approval of Assad at the time. Would his approval rating have been 70% or 80%? Did the Obama administration by any chance concern itself with this small detail before concluding and deciding that Assad “had to go”, violating the sovereignty of a country?

The stated US intent of forced installation of an American-style democracy in Syria (extremely dependent upon campaign financing) cannot be allowed to prevail over the right of self-determination of peoples. Regions of the planet differ greatly in terms of history, tradition, religion, political habits, use of violence, etc. And it cannot be alleged that it would not have been possible to conduct such a prior survey in Syria, via referendum, because Assad was a “dictator” and would  falsify its results. The USA did not give Syria any chance to provide evidence of sufficient support on the part of the population before the opposition, financed, trained and armed by the CIA, went on the attack.
Modern public opinion polls, conducted by specialized entities, are impressively precise, with a margin of error of 3%. Would it not have been essential for a referendum to be held by the “suspect” Syrian government. The Obama administration had no interest in knowing, even informally, about the preference of the population. Perhaps because there was a high risk of the poll showing that Syrians would prefer to live as they had lived to date, without exchanging the certain for the dubious. If the specialized poll had shown that opposition to the government did not attain 20%, this would have been too much of an impediment to the plan to use force to remove Assad from power. They would have had to invent another reason.

All the evidence indicates that the hidden goal of toppling Assad is that of isolating Iran, that true ally of Arab Palestine, which cannot achieve the status of a country because this is not in the interest of Israel. The far-right Israeli government does not turn against Assad because he is a dictator. Although if Syria came to enjoy full democracy, with continued support for Iran, it would be attacked. However, being a “hardened” regime, this is better for the United States and Israel, given that worldwide public opinion always have an aversion towards dictatorships or semi-dictatorships.

Furthermore, other questions can be put to those who demand the renouncement or downfall of Bashar Assad. These questions are the following: were Afghanistan and Iraq better places after the invasion led by the United States? Only someone who is out of his mind and a liar would say yes. Was Libya a pacified and prosperous country after the fall of Gaddafi? It was much worse, with widespread anarchy, the Arab African country disintegrating into tribal fighting. Did Egypt, after the fall of Mubarak, by any chance become a model democratic country, respecting the result of the only presidential election? No. The elected president, Mohamed Morsi, was deposed and condemned to death by the military because he had incited the population, in a public square, to disobey the armed forces, which did not want to accept the decision of the ballot boxes.

Another more theoretical question: does the USA, solely due to the fact that it is the greatest power on the planet, have the right to say who stays or goes in the government of any country? Is the far from modest idea of North-American “exceptionalism” an order (as Obama seems to intend) or solely a good example to be followed, voluntarily, by other countries, considering the advantages of an authentic non-corrupt democracy? With regard to this, experience has shown to date that the American administration approves or disapproves governments with democratic weaknesses according to American interests at the time. For example, it never tried to depose Pinochet in Chile. Much to the contrary.

Happily or unhappily, Bashar Assad has found assistance that perhaps makes precarious survival possible for him: the “quasi-tyrant” Vladimir Putin — a head of state also widely judged unfairly with respect to his defects and qualities. He has his defects, as in the case of all other heads of state and government, without exception, but he does not abandon defenseless peoples victimized by injustice. It should always be remembered that Putin is openly assisting Syria because its leader, Assad, is being attacked and asked for help. Such an action is legitimized by International Law. To the contrary of the USA and its “friends” (with no opinion of their own), which are interfering in Syria with the precise intent of bringing down the government, without the authorization of the United Nations Security Council. Everyone knows that the “moderate” opposition is trained, armed and financed by the CIA, as amply disclosed in the media. 

Putin is widely criticized because he supposedly “invaded Ukraine” and “took possession” of Crimea. In fact, he only complied with the explicit desire (as demonstrated by a referendum and formal request) of the inhabitants of Crimea of Russian origin, most of whom speak Russian. Putin did not close his ears and eyes to the appeal made by thousands of Ukrainians. What he did in Crimea is what the USA would do in Mexico, if thousands of blond, English-speaking Mexicans of American origin, living at the American border, were to ask for assistance and American citizenship when faced with a Mexican government hostile to their American origin. It should also be noted that Viktor Yanukovich, the president-elect of Ukraine and favorable to Russia, was forcibly removed from power not long before the inhabitants of Crimea asked Putin for Russian citizenship. At this point, mention should again be made of that old maxim of political philosophy: is it not that supreme political power lies in the people?

In their articles, newspaper columnists, almost always with surnames of Hebrew origin, usually label Putin, patriotically, as a “wily fox”, striving for personal prestige. If he is a fox, he is a fox that shows consistency and solidarity with the forgotten and humiliated Palestinian people, the distant origin of the confused mess that the Middle East has become.  Al Qaeda is a by-product of the Palestinian situation and it is Al Qaeda that gave rise to the Islamic State.

A few days ago, I read an interesting analogy on the Internet of what happened regarding the large number of Jews who sought a home in Palestine: imagine a hotel in flames (anti-Semitic Europe in the 1930s); a Jewish guest, on the third floor of the hotel, finds himself on the balcony, cornered and terrified, expecting that he will soon burn to death; the only alternative is to jump from the balcony, as it is impossible to wait for the arrival of the fire brigade; he decides to take a risk and jump, with eyes closed, and by chance falls on a passer-by (a Palestinian), who ended up with various broken bones but saved (although involuntarily) the life of the Jew, breaking his fall.

The Jew, only slightly hurt, leaves, happy to be alive and, months later, receives a visit from the Palestinian who, rather crippled, arrives on crutches and asks for compensation as it is almost impossible for him to work. The Jew says that he cannot help him because he did not act with deliberate intent to cause harm, stating that he could not be required to stay on the balcony and burn to death, simply in order to avoid being a nuisance to a possible passer-by. The Palestinian argues that he did not set fire to the hotel. The Jew becomes irritated, saying that he also did not set fire to the hotel. This tragic discussion has lasted for more than half a century. And the Palestinian still continues to walk on crutches, dragging himself along in a miserable life, full of restrictions, whereas the jumper with no parachute proudly exhibits his efficiency and wealth to the world. Seeing this on his ancient television, the Palestinian, crippled and resentful, only murmurs: “He should be ashamed of himself with so much wealth...”.

For how long? Until the world, very stupid and with little imagination, concludes the following: firstly, that Palestine is too small to be home to two nations that came into being in such different ways; secondly, that the African continent, for example, is immense and, in territorial terms, is capable of absorbing more than one hundred Palestines; thirdly, that Obama and the rich countries would do better if they promoted the innovative and ultimately problem-solving idea of using part of the territory of Africa (through negotiation with some African country) in order that part of the Palestinian population (or Jewish population) may be able to live, work and progress there, relieving semi-arid Palestine which, the way things are going, could lead to a third world war. After 60 years of tension, a solution to the problem is ever more distant.

Poor countries of East Africa with coastlines bordering the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, for example, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique, which are terribly lacking in jobs and resources, could be interested in “selling” — that is to say “negotiating” — a smaller delimited part of their extensive territory for installation of an overseas Jewish or Palestinian “province”.

This “implant” in Africa, freely negotiated and paid for by the international community, will make it possible for the conceding or “selling” African country to achieve enormous relief from its customary shortages, developing its economy, creating jobs, etc. 
Barack Obama, with this bold idea, just as promising as the recent “Trans-Pacific Partnership”, would resolve the Palestinian impasse which, in the final analysis, is a physical and territorial problem rather than a religious one. It would be the crowning jewel of his administration, if only for the idea and initiation of its planning.

Who knows? Maybe Putin, this consistent little man, being more audacious than his American equivalent, could come to cogitate this possibility. Of course, a concrete solution would still take time, due to the complexity of the objective in question, but the interested parties (Palestinians and Jews, Europeans and Americans) would at least know that there is a possible encouraging future on the horizon. Instead of spending their time hating and killing one another and planning revenge, both Jews and Palestinians would occupy themselves conducting studies, visiting Africa and contacting African governments. Whoever acts first, Obama, Putin or Angela Merkel, enhancing this idea, would deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. Even two.

This suggestion, perhaps subject to ridicule, is no so absurd as it seems: prior to independence, was Brazil not “part” of Portugal? Were the English colonies in North America not “part” of England? Was Spanish America not a Spanish “implant” in the New World? The difference between yesterday and a possible tomorrow lies in the fact that yesterday, new lands were conquered and colonized with gunpowder and blood. Now it would be achieved with visits by engineers, geologists and diplomats, discussing the costs and details of drawing up treaties. They would use measurements, set squares and pens rather than grenades and machine guns.

However, the whole process would be closely accompanied by the United Nations, as it is well known that, in all negotiations, there is a tendency for abuse of the less astute party.

(13-10-2015)