Islamic State: How Arab autocrats, Israeli terror state and Western plutocrats made it in Syria

The enemy of your enemy is your friend: this is the enduring wisdom all over the world. But the problem starts when the enemy-friend is a barbarous creature. But after you nurture a venomous snake over years and decades, can you legitimately ask it to restrain from spewing venom? Apparently not. But the West is trying to do this very thing in Iraq and Syria today.

In the inferno that the Western Asia has become today, it is easy to overlook the vested interests of US and Israel in perpetuating the cycle of violence. Indeed no MSM will ever elaborate how precisely US, Britain or Israel have contributed to the creation of the monster called IS. 

But truth does not stop being truth by not being told. It may well hide in the background but someone or the other will be tempted to call it by the name. The Machiavellian tactic of the West and the Arab dictators in creating and then slaying the enemies so as to continuously subjugate the people with fear and ferocity seems working perfectly so far. And there are no signs things will change anytime soon.

So what can we do in the meantime? Merely watch this drama from sides doing nothing? Well, our deeds may not contribute in any way to alleviate the sufferings of the people propelled to the inferno mercilessly but at least we can talk, whisper or write about the truth. Here is one more illustrious piece from Sadiq. 


Syrian Jihad spawned the Islamic State

Nauman Sadiq

Let me admit at the outset that Assad is an illegitimate tyrant who must abdicate his hereditary throne to the will of the people when the opportune moment arrives. But at the moment our primary concern shouldn’t be bringing democracy to Syria; at the moment our first and foremost priority should be reducing the level of violence in Syria. There are two parties to this conflict: the regime and the rebels (the majority of whom are takfiri jihadis). It is not possible for the regime to deescalate the conflict because it is holding a tiger by the tail. The regime is fighting a war of defense; and what is at stake in this war is its survival; not only its survival but the survival of its clan: the Alawite minority of 2.6 million people who comprise 12% population of Syria’s 22 million people.

The second party to the conflict is the rebels who are generously supported by the Gulf monarchies, Turkey (Sunni Muslims), Western powers and Israel. Don’t get alarmed and be dismissive of the possibility of an alliance [1] between the Sunni Muslims of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey and the Zionists of Israel. It is realpolitik: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In fact the Western interest in this war is partly about Israel’s regional security [2] because the Shia axis comprising Iran-Syria-Hezbollah is an existential threat to Israel; and with each passing year the nature of this threat will enhance proportionally with the increased sophistication of Iranian missile program. During the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, most of the rockets fired by Hezbollah into the Israeli territory missed their target; but according to some reports Iran and Hezbollah have already developed smarter missiles and with every passing year the threat of Hezbollah’s guided missiles so close to Israeli borders will keep on haunting the Israeli strategists’ dreams.

Danny Schechter: Suicide bombers over Gaza?

"Israeli military superiority belongs to the past. There is no future for the Jews-only-State in Palestine; they may have to try somewhere else." - Gilad Altzom, Israeli writer

A war is not a free lunch, after all. Amid the vicious and ghastly damage that the IDF is causing in the Gaza strip, the long term repercussions of the conflict are not going to favor Israel according to an increasing number of analysts.

In this hard-hitting piece, Danny Schechter of News Dissector delves into how exactly the current conflict is exacting its toll on the Israeli side.

More interesting to see, however, will be the long term impact of the conflict. At a time when the ground itself in which both the sides are standing is shifting palpably, the fighting has resumed, as I write these words, after a brief lull.

To gauge the insight from Schechter's article, let's read the statements of Gilad Altzom, an Israeli writer that Schechter quotes in his article:

“In spite of clear Israeli technological superiority and firepower, the Palestinian militants are winning the battle on the ground and they have even managed to move the battle to Israeli territory. In addition, the barrage of rockets on Tel Aviv doesn’t seem to stop.

IDF’s defeat in Gaza leaves the Jewish State with no hope. The moral is simple. If you insist on living on someone else’s land, military might is an essential ingredient to discourage the dispossessed from acting to reclaim their rights. The level of IDF casualties and the number of bodies of Israeli elite soldiers returning home in coffins send a clear message to both Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli military superiority belongs to the past. There is no future for the Jews-only-State in Palestine; they may have to try somewhere else.”

Read more in Outlook Website

Syria and Middle East: Whom to believe (and whom not to)

Jiwan Kshetry

When propaganda trumpets truth and acts of vested interests disguise as sheer altruistic deeds, it is often hard to tell black from white. Media play immense role in shaping our ideas and attitudes to every major event. What about the 'changing Middle East' then? Some insights:

First it was believed that the Arabs and Muslims were fundamentally a people suitably ruled by autocrats, backward and non-innovative. (Read Thomas Friedman's 'World is Flat').

Then everyone awoke with the realization that the opposite was indeed true. They were democracy and peace-loving people brave enough to oust the dictators with peaceful revolt. (Read all stuff written during the early days of what was then called 'Arab Spring'.)

Then the script changed even more dramatically. Peaceful attempts of the people were not enough to topple the regimes and foreign bombing was mandated to 'protect' the civilians (See what happened in Libya). Meanwhile some brutal repressions of the popular will were 'acceptable' at worst. (See what happened in Bahrain).

With all this, everything was supposed to fall on place. If only. A big 'if only'. If only the turmoil had not continued in Syria for so long. So what is the significance of the struggle raging in Syria? This is a big question for anyone interested in both international power game as well as the historical trend of different political systems.

With the trend of events over the past year, the perspectives of the changing scenario of Middle East have changed dramatically. The overt optimism all over the world in the early days of revolt about the changing Middle East has now given away to an apprehensive pessimism and this sense is now palpable in columns of analysts throughout the political spectrum.

If Tunisia represents a modest success for the revolt, Egypt's performance can be termed 'dismal'. If Bahrain epitomizes the brutally suppressed rebellion, Libya epitomizes a peaceful movement hijacked by armed militias backed by foreign hands culminating into frank mob rule.

And the ever-lasting injustice to Palestinians with the status quo means that nothing has changed radically after all despite all the boasts about the new Middle East.

But most perplexing question of the moment is which way will Syria take? Though many think Syria is too unique to follow the identical course of any other of its neighbors, a tentative comparison with Bahraini or Libyan way of conclusion of the conflict seems relevant.

What I think Syria will follow or should follow is a matter for a separate article. But here I will recommend the readers to follow some of the relevant sources so that picture of raging conflict in Syria becomes more comprehensive.