• Jadaliyya
    http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/25628/the-left-and-the-syria-debate

    Sur la question syrienne, un très long et très riche article de As’ad AbuKhalil, dont j’extraie ces lignes, juste avant la conclusion. A lire absolument si on s’intéresse à ladite question.

    Some Principles to Consider in Assessing the Leftist Stance on Syria

    While there are no active leftist organizations and movements of consequence on either side of the divide in the Syrian conflict, leftist arguments and appeals should not be disregarded or forgotten. Poor people are dying on both sides of the divide in Syria, and poor people are among the fighters of the regime and of the rebels. Leftist arguments should still hold for analysis and for activism, even if they are not currently politically salient.
    The invocation of the “Syrian people,” speaking on behalf of the Syrian people, deploying the academically fashionable terminology of “the agency of the Syrian people” is in line with—if not always intentionally—a long Western tradition of occupation and colonization in the name of the natives. There are Syrians who support the rebels, there are Syrians who support the regime, and there are Syrians who support neither. They all do so for a complex set of reasons. The notion that leftists should blindly follow the political choice of “the people” or a segment of people (conveniently selected) is a political exercise intended to support one group of combatants. Masses can make erroneous political choices and leftists—of all people—should not use demagogic arguments.
    Leftists should not necessarily follow blindly one side or the other in the armed conflict. We can all agree Asad and his regime represent a brutal dictatorship. That is not the same as saying those armed groups of consequence among the Syrian opposition should be supported or championed. Leftists should make their own criticisms or suggestions without fear of intimidation, especially the effective and universal intimidation exercised by the US-Gulf alliance.
    There are civilians on both sides of the conflict. All sides of the armed conflict (meaning, the Syrian regime and the rebels as well as all of their sponsors and supporters) have committed war crimes. Despite no reliable data about the killing and destruction, we know that both sides are guilty of war crimes, and that the regime bears a much bigger share of the responsibility. The notion that the Syrian regime is justified in its bombing campaign or that rebels are hiding behind civilians (even if true in some cases) is the same argument often used by Zionists to justify the murder of Palestinian civilians. This logic should be categorically rejected. Similarly, the notion that Syrian rebel crimes should be ignored or forgiven because the Syrian regime committed more war crimes is basically a license for Syrian rebels to commit more war crimes.
    Leftists of all people should welcome open debate about Syria and should reject the intimidation tactics of Western supporters and cheerleaders for the Syrian rebels. Leftists more than others should engage in media deconstruction and in pointing out the impact of financial ownership of media in the West and in the Arab world.
    Attacking the anti-imperialist left in the West has a long tradition. Those engaging in the debate about Syria need to be careful to not contribute and reinforce this tradition, all the while stating any differences and critiques they might have of those that identify as the anti-imperialist left. We need to separate those attacks on parts of the left due to purely Syrian considerations from those that are part of the US hegemonic order.
    The attack on the left exaggerates the role of the left, in the West, in the Syrian conflict, and in the Arab world at large.
    Most promoters of the idea that the left is guilty in its stance on the Syrian conflict belong to groups who are sponsored by Gulf regimes or Western governments—hardly parties that possess Leftist credentials. It must be noted in this context that the Western attacks on the left from supporters of Syrian rebels is synchronized with the campaign of attacks against the left across the Saudi-owned media.
    Leftists should be aware of the infiltration by Zionists in the ranks of the debate on Syria, for purposes that are neither related to Syria nor the welfare of the Syrian population.

    Some of the loudest voices feigning concern for the Syrian people are individuals, organizations, and regimes that have never been known for their concern for the Syrian people or for the lives of Arabs more generally.
    Palestine is relevant to every debate, or it should be. But the Palestinian issue is being exploited for political purposes by all sides to the conflict. The Syrian regime and its supporters use it, for example, in their argument that any protest or armed insurrection against the regime is a Zionist conspiracy (although Israel is certainly active in the Syrian conflict and Israel has been active in every internal war or conflict in the contemporary Arab world). The Zionist supporters of the Syrian rebels also exploit the issue when they take advantage of every possible political event to further the interests of Israeli occupation and aggression.
    The left is interested in the welfare of the poor, and neither the Syrian regime nor its enemies among the rebels care for the poor. Furthermore, the Western-Gulf alliance is hardly ever interested in the plight of the poor in their own countries, let alone abroad.
    Leftists have to oppose Russian intervention in Syria at the same time they condemn US, European, and Gulf intervention in Syria. Russia is a hegemonic player, but the United States remains the supreme imperialist global power causing more death, destruction, and conflict than any other country on the planet. There are reasons to distrust Russian motives in Syria, but there are more reasons to distrust US motives in Syria and across the Arab world.

  • Ainsi donc, Max Blumenthal s’attaque frontalement au lobby de la « no-fly zone » en Syrie, avec un long passage sur les « Casques blancs » :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/530028

    Il y a une évolution assez étonnante depuis, disons, cet été. En dehors de As‘ad Abukhalil (Angry Arab), toute cette partie de la gauche pro-palestinienne aux États-Unis avait assez soigneusement évité d’écrire explicitement contre la campagne de changement de régime en Syrie.

    Mais depuis cet été, Ali Abunimah (Electronic Intifada) rentre régulièrement dans le lard du « néoconservateur Charles Lister ». Sa collègue Rania Khalek est désormais tellement ouvertement critique qu’elle semble focaliser sur elle les critiques du fan club de la rébellitude syrienne. Et dans les échanges sur Twitter, Max Blumenthal s’était joint aux deux précédents et les a clairement soutenus contre « le lobby de la NFZ ».

    Mais je suis tout de même étonné de le voir aujourd’hui publier une enquête aussi longue, en pleine campagne militaro-médiatique sur Alep, avec les Casques blancs que l’on pousse pour le Nobel de la Paix, et qui démonte aussi longuement le lobby au service d’une intervention militaire américaine de changement de régime.

    Pour rappel : en juin 2012, Max Blumenthal avait quitté le Akhbar en le dénonçant, d’une manière assez indigne, comme « pro-Assad » :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/309303

    Alors qu’il y a un argument, dans son long article du jour, qu’il aurait immanquablement reproché à un auteur du Akhbar à l’époque :

    Asfari’s support for opposition forces was so pronounced the Syrian government filed a warrant for his arrest, accusing him of supporting “terrorism.”

    Oui, là il utilise la classification comme terroriste, par le régime même, d’un de ses opposants, pour prouver ce qu’il affirme sur cet individu (certes, il a beaucoup d’autres arguments, mais qu’il commence à évoquer Asfari avec un tel argument me semble très… hum…).

    On n’a pas fini de lire des éructations indignées contre "cette gauche" pro-palestinienne et anti-impérialiste ; je pense même que ça va redevenir une priorité du fan-club, parce qu’il y a là pour eux un grave problème de légitimité militante.