PHARES RESPONSE TO M
SIROIS
MANAGING EDITOR OF THE
DAILY STAR
BEIRUT
Subject: Getting
Serious by Walid Phares
Mr Marc
Sirois
Managing Editor
The Daily Star
Beirut,
Lebanon
Dear M Sirois:
I
can appreciate that
you would correct as
many "factual
errors, twistings of
the truth, and outright
fabrications assembled
in one place," that
you pretend you've
identified, as long as the
so-called corrections are not
exactly just that:
Distortions of what I
wrote, camouflage of what
you want to
say, and defending
who cannot defend
themselves. You know
the Arabic saying, "Darabani
wa baka.." (Meaning:
he hits me
then cries).
Now
to the content:
1. You wrote:
"Washington has been
making war on Iraq
since 1991, when the
original Bush administration had Syrian support
in return for having
sold out Lebanon; Syria's
attempt to prevent
an outright invasion in 2003
was therefore
anything but the
first shot." First I
really didn't
see the rational of
your equation and what
point were you responding
to? But
nevertheless yes the
First (not the original) Bush Administration sold out Free
Lebanon to Syria in
exchange of its
nominal participation in the campaign
against Saddam's
occupation of Kuwait. We
all know (especially
in Lebanon) that the Syrian
leadership of Hafez Assad was
exceptionally shrewd
and was able to
outmaneuver not only
the US, but also the
Israelis and many other
Arab Governments. The Syrian
dictator awaited
patiently for his moment,
marginalized Arab moderate role in
Lebanon, and set the stage
for the final assault on East Beirut.
The story is long of course,
but on the 1991 affair,
its is now common
knowledge that Assad
offered Washington a token of participation (which
satisfied his plans of
weakening Saddam), and his major victory
in Lebanon, consented
upon by the then
Oil-interested US
establishment.
2.
You wrote:
"Bashar Assad
hoodwinked Jacques Chirac?
Please."
Well,
you may find it
strange, but
Chirac's political
establishment is bound
to submissive relations to the Arab world in
general, to the survival of
its contracts with Iraq and to
satisfying the Syrian controlled Hariri
elite in Beirut. He
often referred to
mes amis a Beirut et dans le
monde Arabe in his
strategic speeches.
Don't
underestimate the Syrian
leadership legacy.
Those who outmaneuvered the US and Israel
in the 1990s, can emulate
this with France, no?
3. You wrote:
"Hizbullah has
not been accused of
deliberately harming
a civilian for something
like a decade, which
is far more than the
IDF can say;
Graham's description
was childish."
And who would be
able to accuse
Hizbollah when no opposition is
left intact inside
the country? We
refer you to the long
reports about
Hizbollah's direct
harming of civilians in
Jezzine and the border
areas, as well as its
torture of South Lebanese
through the decade
and beyond. Besides,
few years of
lower activities
doesn't grant amnesty
to Terrorism.
4.
You wrote: "Hizbullah
has helped the Lebanese
Army to fight Sunni Islamists, including a
pitched battle in
northern Lebanon a
couple of years back
that was wisely
reported in the media."Surely,
me and my brother
against our
cousin, and we and
our cousin
against the stranger.
Hizbollah fought against
the Syrians in 1987, against the
Lebanese Army in the early
1990s, and along with Syrian and
pro-Syrian Lebanese
against the SLA and Israel. Normal no? As
far as the incidents of Kfar
Habou in 2000, the Syrians
stood aside, the
Lebanese Army crushed the
Wahabi Islamists, and Hizbollah
meets regularly with
Islamic Jihad and Hamas, to
coordinate. Both
are Sunnis.
5. You wrote:
"Even Israeli intelligence
operatives admit they
have zero
evidence of ANY links
between Hamas and Islamic
Jihad on one side
and Al-Qaeda on the other."You
don't need the
Israeli intelligence to read
web pages. There,
online, you can see
the links.
6. You wrote:
"Hizbullah's
principle sponsor,
threatened to invade Afghanistan a
few years
ago because the
Taleban and Al-Qaeda
were mistreating
Shiites.
If
a partnership ever
develops between
Hizbullah and Al-Qaeda,
which are mortal
enemies, it will
be one of
convenience forced
by obtuse US policy. And
even the it will
mean nothing:
Remember that the US
military and OSS worked with the
Mafia to undermine
the Nazi defense of Italy."Well
you answered it yourself:
Hizbollah and al-Qaida are
certainly on different sectarian and
ideological grounds.
So is Hizbollah, an Islamist group, and the Syrian Baath, a socialist
nationalist regime. Yet
they have
established a strategic
alliance. Haven't
they? Read the speeches
of Nasrallah about
the Assad leadership. And vice versa. Hizbollah
and al-Qaida have
the US and the Free world on their agenda.
Once
they will
defeat their
enemies, they
can fight each
other for the next
century.
What
interest would
we have in that?
7. You wrote:
"American volunteers
fought in Spain's
civil war. Did that
make the United States a supporter of terrorism?" No, it
made those individual
Americans supporters for the
causes they
fought for.
Either Socialists, or
Nationalists. Had the US
Government sent individuals
to blow themselves
up with allied forces
in Bosnia and Kosovo, that
would have qualified
for Terrorism
8.
You wrote: "The
Marine barracks bombing
killed 241 people, not 100.
Your
formulation makes for flippancy,
but it's bad
math and even
worse history." I
originally wrote
hundreds of Marines, but
the editors changed it to a 100 Marines.
So, you don't
have to play sarcasms.
I was there at the
time, and the editor of a weekly
magazine which
reported this accurately.
Your poisonous words
betray more of your
anti-Americanism then
your concerns with numbers
of deaths.
9: You wrote
"There is
more, but I
tire of this.
The Syrian government
frequently does
things that no reasonable
person will defend,
but that is not the same as
saying it should be
threatened, tacitly or
otherwise, with invasion.
Think of the consequences of
helping to build
momentum for war.
Or, at the very least,
get your facts straight
before you back a campaign
that risks other people's
lives for no good
reason." It's
quite interesting
that the only space
reserved for journalists in Beirut is to
politely mention "things
that no reasonable person
will defend," when
it comes to Syria in
Lebanon. I do
understand that you are under
occupation and the Daily Star (whom
I respect) need to
be printed and distributed.
So is the case for other
media. But for us to
be the hostages of those
who chose to comply with Syrian
guidelines on liberty
and Democracy, frankly,
no. One, we are not
here to encourage
anyone, including
the US to invade other
countries. We are
here to convince
Syria to withdraw
its forces from a
particular other
country: Lebanon. We
do not call for US
invasion, we are simply
calling for the cessation
of the consequences of
Syria's invasions of its
neighbor. Our
facts are straight
and at least can
be discussed,
unlike the facts of
(Iraqi and Lebanese
ministers of Information) Sahhaf and the
Aridi of this world. And
finally, it is very
considerate to be
concerned about
other people's lives.
We
certainly are. But
it would be even
more considerate to
account for thousands
of lives lost to the
Syrian shelling from 1976 to 1990, the
many journalists
assassinated by them
including journalism syndicate
leaders, and the health
of thousand of political
prisoners both in
Lebanon and Syria.With
all my respects to the Daily Star, the
profession, and my commitment to the
Truth.
Walid
Phares
