person:al-akhbar english

Je vois que d’autres font la même remarque ; par exemple ici un certain « Club des Cordeliers » (en anglais) :
▻https://twitter.com/cordeliers/status/782933793388756992

Max Blumenthal, now decrying Syria destabilization operations, was a cheerleader for regime change in 2013 ►http://maxblumenthal.com/2012/06/the-right-to-resist-is-universal-a-farewell-to-al-akhbar-and-assads-a

Khalek and Blumenthal both suddenly altered their take on Syria, in lockstep, without apology or explanation. They are not to be trusted.

By the way, genuine anti-imperialists have been exposing the Syria Campaign since last year with no help or acknowledgment from Blumenthal.

Note, e.g., this tweet from @snarwani - whom Blumenthal viciously attacked for her excellent coverage of Syria.

Sharmine Narwani @snarwani: All roads lead to western financing of NGOs promoting regime-change in #Syria. Read @VanessaBeeley’s detailed expose ►https://thewallwillfall.org/2016/01/23/george-soros-anti-syria-campaign-impresario

Will the rebranded Max Blumenthal issue a retraction or an apology to @snarwani ? I’m not holding my breath.

Note que je ne suis pas totalement en phase avec ce genre de position. Malgré mes remarques, je pense que l’article du jour de Blumenthal est important. C’est d’ailleurs pour cela que j’ai décidé de faire ces commentaires dans un autre flux que le signalement de l’article lui-même.

The Campaign against Max Blumenthal and Electronic Intifada comrades
▻http://angryarab.blogspot.fr/2016/10/the-campaign-against-max-blumenthal-and.html

It has been insane. Ever since Max Blumenthal wrote this article, the propaganda outlets of Syrian exile opposition and rebels (largely through Qatari regime media and others) launched a vicious campaign against Max Blumenthal, Ali Abunimah, Rania Khalek, Asa Winstanley, and Ben Norton among others. I am not sure how Electronic Intifada was entered into the mix. Ironically, when Max Blumenthal left Al-Akhbar English over disagreements over Syria, the same pro-Syrian “revolution” crowds hailed him as the most heroic and bravest journalist since John Reed. And as soon as the same Max wrote this article, he is now being accused—by the same people who had hailed him before—of love for Bashshar and being a Shabbih, and even suggested that he was paid by Russian government for his writings. I have had disagreements with Max in the past, but this vicious and sinister campaign is a hallmark of the tactics and methods of the anti-democratic “democratic” Syrian “rebel” media and its amen corners in the US. Ali Abunimah and Electronic Intifada have been consistently and bravely covering Israeli crimes and murders and occupation for years, and yet the Syrian “revolution” supporters decided to go all out against one of the few outlets here in the US which dares to expose Israeli crimes. But this shows that supporters of the Syrian “revolution” clearly wants one point of view only. Just one point of view. Anyone who disagrees with them is inevitably accused of being a supporter of Bashshar. I or anyone else who can state daily or regularly that he/she wants Bashshar’s regime overthrown, will also be accused of love for Bashshar if this person does not support the Syrian “revolution”.

PS Is it really a coincidence that the campaign is being directed against some of the bravest voices against Israel in the US? Is it really?

Sur Twitter, Gleen Greenwald a répondu qu’il trouvait une des attaques contre Ali Abunimah « disgusting on multiple levels », et Daniel Shunra a commenté : « so ugly ».
▻https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/783780386572763136
▻https://twitter.com/shunradan/status/783739978618580992

Sur les White Helmets, ce post aussi :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/484543

#Syrie #White_Helmets #The_Syria_Campaign #Max_Blumenthal

Sur l’article de Blumenthal, quelques réponses ici :
▻https://hummusforthought.com/2016/10/05/list-of-rebuttals-to-max-blumenthals-anti-syrian-article

Même si à mon avis, on confond deux questions :
1) question journalistique : est-ce que les White Helmets sont indépendants ou est-ce qu’ils ont un but politique (renverser Assad) et des financements extérieurs (dont US)
2) question politique : est-ce que les White Helmets font du bon travail ou 2b) est-ce que c’est une bonne idée de renverser Assad

Il me semble que Blumenthal est assez convaincant sur la première question, mais que c’est à la deuxième question (qui n’est pas celle de l’article) que les réponses s’adressent. C’est à dire que cet article est interprété comme un soutien à Assad et attaqué en tant que tel, sans tenir compte de ce qu’il « révèle » (ou disons « documente ») comme faits sur les White Helmets.

En confondant critique des White Helmets et éloge de Assad, ceux qui dénoncent Blumenthal ne font en fait que confirmer ce qu’il dit, c’est à dire que les deux sont liés !

Et à propos de Blumenthal encore:
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/511858

#Palestine #BDS #Tunisie #Qatar

Une autre critique, du même site, mais mieux écrite
▻https://hummusforthought.com/2016/10/12/on-the-allies-were-not-proud-of-a-palestinian-response-to-troublin

Avec des arguments qui ont au moins le mérite d’être honnêtes:

1) We also believe that an important consequence of all foreign interventions, including those purportedly done on behalf of the uprising, has been the setback of the original demands of revolution. The revolution is a victim, not a product, of these interventions.

2) Though we maintain that the phenomenon of foreign aid demands thorough critique, we are concerned by the ways in which foreign aid has been weaponized to cast suspicion on Syrian humanitarian efforts.

Une autre critique:

Will the left hear the cries from Aleppo?
Ashley Smith, Socialist Worker, October 19, 2016
▻https://socialistworker.org/2016/10/19/will-the-left-hear-the-cries-from-aleppo

Toujours sur le même sujet, un article qui tente le grand écart, dans le style « y a des erreurs des deux côtés ». Pas facile, mais il a le mérite d’essayer :

Syria and the Left : Time to Break the Silence
Eric Draitser, Counterpunch, October 20, 2016
►http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/20/syria-and-the-left-time-to-break-the-silence

Traduction de l’article de Blumenthal en français ici:

La mystification des « casques blancs »
►https://seenthis.net/messages/535514

Encore un qui essaye d’examiner objectivement les bons et les mauvais aspects « des deux côtés », dans le début de son article. J’ai trouvé la deuxième partie, où il donne des conseils, moins convaincante :

The Debate Over Syria Has Reached a Dead End
Bassam Haddad, The Nation, October 18, 2016
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/534960

Tu as aussi l’interview de Yassin al-Haj Saleh dans The Intercept, que je trouve malheureusement très faible :
▻https://theintercept.com/2016/10/26/syria-yassin-al-haj-saleh-interview

Comme la plupart des texte consacrés à « la gauche internationale » que tu références ci-dessus, les arguments de cette « gauche » y sont systématiquement parodiés.

Voir la réaction de Angry Arab :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/537805

Debating escalation of the war in Syria
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/539651

Encore un article qui essaye d’être «équilibré»:

The Many ‘Truths’ on Syria: How Our Rivalry Has Destroyed a Country
Ramzy Baroud, Foreign Policy Journal, Oct 19, 2016
▻http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/19/the-many-truths-on-syria-how-our-rivalry-has-destroyed-a-count

Encore un:

The Left and the Syria Debate
As`ad Abukhalil, Jadaliyya, le 10 décembre 2016
►http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/25628/the-left-and-the-syria-debate

Je m’en souviens, c’était une vidéo de Max Blumenthal. Il doit s’agir de la fameuse vidéo « Fell the Hate in Jerusalem », dont il dit qu’elle a finalement été bannie de Youtube, Vimeo et Huffington Post après avoir dépassé les 400.000 vues.

Du coup, il a fait une suite : « Felle the Hate in Tel Aviv » :
►https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze5dbxPO8cU

Merci Nidal, j’ignorais que Max Blumenthal, ancien collaborateur du quotidien Al-Akhbar , était l’auteur de la 1ère vidéo.

The right to resist is universal: A farewell to Al Akhbar and Assad’s apologists
►http://maxblumenthal.com/2012/06/the-right-to-resist-is-universal-a-farewell-to-al-akhbar-and-assads-a

Following her vehement defense of the Syrian dictator’s use of surgery metaphors to refer to his security forces’ brutal crackdowns, Al Akhbar English featured Ghorayeb’s daftest work to date: an attack on Arab Third Wayers (supporters of the anti-imperialist, anti-authoritarian political tendency) in which she asserted that “the real litmus of Arab intellectuals’ and activists’ commitment to the Palestinian cause is no longer their support for Palestinian rights, but rather, their support for the Assad leadership’s struggle against the imperialist-Zionist-Arab moderate axis’ onslaught against it.”

Ghorayeb’s rant, rightly condemned by As’ad Abu Khalil as an “outrage,” was of a piece with the Syrian regime’s long record of exploiting the Palestinian struggle to advance its narrow self-interests. For me, it was the final straw. Had Al Akhbar’s editorial leadership provided a platform to Ghorayeb and other apologists because of the quality of their writing or because of their willingness to defend the regime behind the cover of leftist ideology? This had become a salient question.

I was forced to conclude that unless I was prepared to spend endless stores of energy jousting with Assad apologists, I was merely providing them cover by keeping my name and reputation associated with Al Akhbar. More importantly, I decided that if I kept quiet any longer, I would be betraying my principles and those of the people who have encouraged and inspired me over the years. There is simply no excuse for me to remain involved for another day with such a morally compromised outlet. And so, instead of preparing to throw up in my own mouth each time I click on one of the pro-regime op-eds appearing with regularity on Al Akhbar English’s home page, I am washing my hands of the whole operation.

The Angry Arab News Service: Enough grandstanding on the Syrian question: Al-Akhbar English versus Aljazeera.net
►http://angryarab.blogspot.fr/2012/06/enough-grandstanding-on-syrian-question.html

PS In other words, AlAkhbar (accused of a pro-Asad slant) publishes articles calling for Asad’s downfall. When the Arab oil and gas media call for the downfall of the Saudi or Qatari royal regimes, we can talk, or when the Western liberal media, like the Nation, dare publish an article calling for the demise of Israel.

Al-Akhbar and Syria: No Room for Silence
►http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/al-akhbar-and-syria-no-room-silence

Media organizations, including Al-Akhbar, failed to deliver proper journalistic coverage of Syria. Unreliable sources, inaccessibility of troubled areas and many other factors may be used to rationalize this shortcoming. While the debate regarding a clear editorial line was ongoing, the publication that prides itself on doing things differently found itself partner in a collective media failure in dealing with Syria.
Fifteen months into the events, Al-Akhbar’s editorial policy is that it stands for the basic rights of the Syrian people, for a united and free Syria, and against violence, hatred, destruction and civil unrest. The Syrians must have full sovereignty in deciding their political path without any foreign interference. All crimes should be investigated and all perpetrators, irrespective of their positions, should be held accountable by an independent judicial authority. This applies to all without exception.

However, the collective media failure has laid the groundwork for a situation that is dire in Syria, where only absolutes are tolerated – an absolute crushing of an uprising, or a complete destruction of a regime. Clarity is sought in the most murky of environments. But absolute answers do not exist. Just like there is no black and white in Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, and other places, the political landscape in Syria is also painted with shades of gray.

Bashar al-Assad shouldn’t go today. Bashar al-Assad should have never been president. After all, countries are not personal assets that are passed on as inheritance.

Theory is simple and beautiful and can even be principled – reality, not so much

Media restrictions and Al-Akhbar
►http://angryarab.blogspot.fr/2012/06/media-restrictions-and-al-akhbar.html

Max, I noticed, did not complain at all about censorship because I believe he has the freedom to write what he wanted: I believe that this is the strength of Al-Akhbar in relative terms: editorial control is most lax compared to all Arab media and even to Western media. There are articles in Al-Akhbar Arabic and English that are very critical of the Syrian regime and that call for its overthrow. […] But if Max is unhappy to write alongside people who support the Syrian regime (with whom I disagree of course), how will he feel about writing for, say, Huffington Post where there are apologists for Israeli war crimes? Or for Aljazeera.net? In the Huffington Post Max is writing alongside Abe Foxman, for potato’s sake. Does that bother him? […] Al-Akhbar is a work in progress and our efforts can strengthen the project. It is a least centralized media that I know of and departments are quite independent (sometimes that is good and sometimes that is not but it is not tightly controlled like most Arab media). […] There are yet things in the paper that I don’t like: on Syria or on Lebanon but what is important (and here is something that Max may not see because he does not read Arabic) is that the paper is pioneering on secularism and on challenging religious authorities (Sunnis and Shi`ite and Christian and even published an article about corruption of Hizbullah clerics). The culture section is promoting sexual liberties and homosexual rights: no other Arab media—NONE—dare do that. If there is a freer and better alternative to Al-Akhbar, I don’t know it because there is none.