The Management of Dialogue and the Management of Conflict
Published in Al-Khaleej
(Bahrain) on 23 May 2013
by Khalifa Rashid Al-Shurali (link to original)
(Bahrain) on 23 May 2013
by Khalifa Rashid Al-Shurali (link to original)
Translated from
by Hannah Ridge.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
It is delusional to believe that the United States will bear the cares and aspirations of the people of Syria to the Geneva II Conference. The suffering of the Syrian people cannot be within the interests of any American administration. As for whether the talk is about U.S. priorities in everything that goes on in Syria, the most important issue in the mind of any American official is American national interests that come before it and, indisputably, the position of national security, especially after the Sept. 11 bombing and the emergence of al-Qaida as a threat to American interests at home and abroad.
It is not surprising or representable. Rather, it’s the right of the American citizen over his leader and his administration. For that, it is treason for the American administration to not concern itself with the subject. It is its highest priority. The various administrations harnessed that subject to protect their forces; it drove them from the laws by which they violated human rights, including the rights of Americans, in the society that has so long boasted of its human rights legislation. It is not surprising. Americans compete with the French in the primacy of human rights in their society. Despite that, both societies deny all the value of human rights when the first shock to security hits. The Anglo-Saxon Americans denied their value after Pearl Harbor. The American attack on human rights resumed after Sept. 11, bringing into the world laws disgracefully named the Patriot Act. Similarly, the French denied human rights laws and citizens after their release in 1776.
The arm of American national security extends and retracts out of America often. However, its arm is extended and steady always to a special ally, in the entity “international legitimacy” created in 1948 called Israel, an artificial being similar in its organic composition to an octopus, its arms affecting every corner of the globe. The great ally strikes with a stick and is under its power. Thus, Zionist national security is a basic component of American national security. This is what has clarified for all American leaders the differences of their philosophies and their parties since the creation of the Zionist being. These two securities start from a very realistic theory based on the thoughts of Machiavelli, where the ends justify the means and where values and ethics crumble and fall down. The international organization evaporated, shrank and diminished international law or harnessed it in order to realize a higher goal — the joint protection of national security for all in America and the Zionist being.
Based on this face and its information, Obama manages the crisis in Syria. Based on it, he drew the strict “red line.” As for the line he announced in terms of types of weapons — chemical or otherwise — or naming some groups or the extent of the importance of allies, it is really a flimsy line that does not serve Zionist national security. It is subject to change and alteration; thus, the enemy of today can become a friend and ally if that serves security and vice versa. The friend and the ally that does not serve Zionist-American national security can become an enemy; maybe all the forces will unite against him and he will be classified with the enemy terrorists.
According to this understanding, within the framework of the game to realize these interests to the greatest extent, the Russians play their game with an artful strategic officer, veteran President Putin. A crew of diplomats no less sophisticated and knowledgeable than he, headed by the veteran Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, assists him. They benefit from the contradictions in the Arab positions and the lack of unity in the ranks of the Syrian opposition. Steady Russian interests are intersecting with a new ally — Iran — which is in dire need of a superpower to support it, its nuclear program and its spreading outside its territorial boundaries. Thus, it is a great Russian gain, embodying the old visions of Lenin by sharing the power in the Mediterranean Sea with the Western powers and NATO, focusing strongly on northern Syria, reaching the Arabian sea and the Arabian Gulf through this new ally, especially after the fragmentation of the Warsaw Pact and the erection of NATO missiles and radars on the outskirts of the Russian borders in Poland, Turkey, Romania and Ukraine.
According to this, history repeats itself. The Arab interests that were promised to be fulfilled before the Sykes-Picot agreement are fulfilled now in a different way. American and Russian interests alike drive it with the coming Geneva II Conference. Its secrets and promises are not announced as of yet. However, without any doubt, the dialogue of this conference will revolve around two great forces that do not recognize Arab interests but consider Zionist national security a priority. Thus, the dialogue, like the conflict, does not mean anything for Arab citizens if the Arabs and Syrians do not specifically know their interests and defend them. As for the dependence on the positions and promises of America and Russia, they will not realize the least of the interests of the Syrian people. Betting on either of the forces will not benefit the Arabs in their future. The West has betrayed its ancestors before, and it gave them nothing but ashes.
It is not surprising or representable. Rather, it’s the right of the American citizen over his leader and his administration. For that, it is treason for the American administration to not concern itself with the subject. It is its highest priority. The various administrations harnessed that subject to protect their forces; it drove them from the laws by which they violated human rights, including the rights of Americans, in the society that has so long boasted of its human rights legislation. It is not surprising. Americans compete with the French in the primacy of human rights in their society. Despite that, both societies deny all the value of human rights when the first shock to security hits. The Anglo-Saxon Americans denied their value after Pearl Harbor. The American attack on human rights resumed after Sept. 11, bringing into the world laws disgracefully named the Patriot Act. Similarly, the French denied human rights laws and citizens after their release in 1776.
The arm of American national security extends and retracts out of America often. However, its arm is extended and steady always to a special ally, in the entity “international legitimacy” created in 1948 called Israel, an artificial being similar in its organic composition to an octopus, its arms affecting every corner of the globe. The great ally strikes with a stick and is under its power. Thus, Zionist national security is a basic component of American national security. This is what has clarified for all American leaders the differences of their philosophies and their parties since the creation of the Zionist being. These two securities start from a very realistic theory based on the thoughts of Machiavelli, where the ends justify the means and where values and ethics crumble and fall down. The international organization evaporated, shrank and diminished international law or harnessed it in order to realize a higher goal — the joint protection of national security for all in America and the Zionist being.
Based on this face and its information, Obama manages the crisis in Syria. Based on it, he drew the strict “red line.” As for the line he announced in terms of types of weapons — chemical or otherwise — or naming some groups or the extent of the importance of allies, it is really a flimsy line that does not serve Zionist national security. It is subject to change and alteration; thus, the enemy of today can become a friend and ally if that serves security and vice versa. The friend and the ally that does not serve Zionist-American national security can become an enemy; maybe all the forces will unite against him and he will be classified with the enemy terrorists.
According to this understanding, within the framework of the game to realize these interests to the greatest extent, the Russians play their game with an artful strategic officer, veteran President Putin. A crew of diplomats no less sophisticated and knowledgeable than he, headed by the veteran Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, assists him. They benefit from the contradictions in the Arab positions and the lack of unity in the ranks of the Syrian opposition. Steady Russian interests are intersecting with a new ally — Iran — which is in dire need of a superpower to support it, its nuclear program and its spreading outside its territorial boundaries. Thus, it is a great Russian gain, embodying the old visions of Lenin by sharing the power in the Mediterranean Sea with the Western powers and NATO, focusing strongly on northern Syria, reaching the Arabian sea and the Arabian Gulf through this new ally, especially after the fragmentation of the Warsaw Pact and the erection of NATO missiles and radars on the outskirts of the Russian borders in Poland, Turkey, Romania and Ukraine.
According to this, history repeats itself. The Arab interests that were promised to be fulfilled before the Sykes-Picot agreement are fulfilled now in a different way. American and Russian interests alike drive it with the coming Geneva II Conference. Its secrets and promises are not announced as of yet. However, without any doubt, the dialogue of this conference will revolve around two great forces that do not recognize Arab interests but consider Zionist national security a priority. Thus, the dialogue, like the conflict, does not mean anything for Arab citizens if the Arabs and Syrians do not specifically know their interests and defend them. As for the dependence on the positions and promises of America and Russia, they will not realize the least of the interests of the Syrian people. Betting on either of the forces will not benefit the Arabs in their future. The West has betrayed its ancestors before, and it gave them nothing but ashes.