What is required in Syria is the immediate and unconditional discontinuation of the killing. More specifically, I call for the discontinuation of the killing of the civilians, as this is more important than the regime and the opposition, and more Important than the identity of the party that leaves and the one that stays. The last few days witnessed brutal crimes whose perpetrators should be sanctioned, whoever they may be, while there is no "victory" worthy of this name if its price is the Syrian people's lives. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Arab countries asked that the killing machine be stopped; and when the killing of the demonstrators continued - even escalated - they suggested the arming of the opposition. While I do not doubt the intentions of the Arab states wishing to protect the Syrian citizens, I believe that the next battle will be an uneven one between a regular army and oppositionists carrying light weapons. It would actually be better to see an Arab military intervention to block the way before any foreign intervention, especially by the United States. I could have called for arming the Syrian opposition, had I not been following the American policy, while I am awake, day after day, and noticing that the neoconservative, Israeli lobby and other pro-Likud American symbols have been demanding the same. This means that they want more Arabs and Muslims killed, after we saw what they did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon among others. The two most prominent officials at the American Department of Defense warned against military intervention in Syria and pointed to the underlying dangers of such a step. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey were testifying before Congress. So who opposed them? Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham, two Senate hawks, called for arming the opposition, along with Senator Joe Lieberman who is now an independent, but represents Israel inside the upper house of Congress. The latter three supported each and every war on the Arabs and Muslims. The Americans perceive McCain as being a military expert and a Vietnam War hero, although his experience could be summed up by his capture and the fact that he did not win any battle or war. Personally, it is enough for me to see the pro-Likud Elliott Abrams backing up any position in regard to the Middle East and calling on the administration in Washington to abide by it, in order for me to oppose it. Indeed, this convicted man in the US courts advocated the war on Iraq for intentionally-fabricated reasons, and is solely working to serve Israel inside and outside the administration. Abrams wrote in the mouthpiece of the neoconservatives, the Weekly Standard, and in other pro-Likud publications, while that same publication carried articles going in that same direction, including a proposal by another pro-Likud writer, i.e. Lee Smith, to listen to McCain's advice. This means we should reject both Smith's and McCain's advice. Two days ago, another advocator of war, Max Boot, criticized in the Washington Post Pentagon's caution toward intervention in Syria. In the past, he had called on Washington - via the American Jews' Commentary Magazine - to support the Syrian opposition, without forgetting to request vigilance when allocating the weapons to the oppositionists so that they are not used against Israel, which to him is more important than the lives of the American youth killed in Bush's failed wars. I read headlines about arming the Syrian opposition in various forms, namely "Arm the Free Syrian Army now" by David Schenker as published by the pro-IsraeliWashington Institute for Near East Policy, then the Weekly Standard. In The Atlantic, David Rohde wrote "Why the World Must Prepare to Arm Syria's Rebels," while the New York Times carried an article by pro-Likud journalist Roger Cohen under the headline "Arm Syria's rebels." Among the most despicable articles I read were two written by Andrew McCarthy in another Likud publication, the National Review. The two articles featured the same idea, that American intervention in our countries did not bear its desired fruits, which he claimed were related to freedom and which I say are related to the imposition of Israeli hegemony over us. Therefore, he suggests that the Syrian regime and opposition should be left to proceed with their infighting and the killing of loyalists and detractors, while believing it was unfortunate that one of the two sides will eventually come out victorious. This was Henry Kissinger's comment on the war between Iraq and Iran, as he wished to see both sides losing. I should add, out of objectivity and fairness, that I have many articles before me, all written by moderate Americans in American publications and opposing US military intervention in Syria and the arming of the oppositionists. However, beyond the latter, I have personally objected the arming of the Syrian opposition at first out of fear of seeing the increase of the killing and I still object it because all the advocates of war on the Arabs and Muslims support it. [email protected]
