+- نادي الفكر العربي (http://www.nadyelfikr.com)
+-- المنتدى: الســـــــــاحات الاختصاصيـــــة (http://www.nadyelfikr.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- المنتدى: المدونــــــــة (http://www.nadyelfikr.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=83)
+--- الموضوع: Robert Fisk: (/showthread.php?tid=125)
الصفحات:
1
2
Robert Fisk: - بسام الخوري - 05-07-2009
Robert Fisk: Civilians pay price of war from above
independent newspaper
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Of course there will be an inquiry. And in the meantime, we shall be told that all the dead Afghan civilians were being used as "human shields" by the Taliban and we shall say that we "deeply regret" innocent lives that were lost. But we shall say that it's all the fault of the terrorists, not our heroic pilots and the US Marine special forces who were target spotting around Bala Baluk and Ganjabad.
Related articles
'120 die' as US bombs village
Leading article: Air strikes will not bring stability to Afghanistan
Letters: Aid for Afghanistan
When the Americans destroy Iraqi homes, there is an inquiry. And oh how the Israelis love inquiries (though they rarely reveal anything). It's the history of the modern Middle East. We are always right and when we are not, we (sometimes) apologise and then we blame it all on the "terrorists". Yes, we know the throat-cutters and beheaders and suicide bombers are quite prepared to slaughter the innocent.
But it was a sign of just how terrible the Afghan slaughter was that the powerless President Hamid Karzai sounded like a beacon of goodness yesterday appealing for "a higher platform of morality" in waging war, that we should conduct war as "better human beings".
And of course, the reason is quite simple. We live, they die. We don't risk our brave lads on the ground – not for civilians. Not for anything. Fire phosphorus shells into Fallujah. Fire tank shells into Najaf. We know we kill the innocent. Israel does exactly the same. It said the same after its allies massacred 1,700 at the refugee camps of Sabra and Chatila in 1982 and in the deaths of more than a thousand civilians in Lebanon in 2006 and after the death of more than a thousand Palestinians in Gaza this year.
And if we kill some gunmen at the same time – "terrorists", of course – then it is the same old "human shield" tactic and ultimately the "terrorists" are to blame. Our military tactics are now fully aligned with Israel.
The reality is that international law forbids armies from shooting wildly in crowded tenements and bombing wildly into villages – even when enemy forces are present – but that went by the board in our 1991 bombing of Iraq and in Bosnia and in Nato's Serbia war and in our 2001 Afghan adventure and in 2003 in Iraq. Let's have that inquiry. And "human shields". And terror, terror, terror. Something else I notice. Innocent or "terrorists", civilians or Taliban, always it is the Muslims who are to blame.
Robert Fisk: - بسام الخوري - 05-07-2009
في مقال بعنوان "المدنيون يدفعون ثمن الحروب" تنشره صحيفة الاندبندنت، يتناول روبرت فيسك موضوع القتلى الذين سقطوا اثناء الغارات التي شنتها القوات الدولية على مسلحي طالبان في افغانستان ويقول: "طبعا سيفتح تحقيق في الموضوع وسيقال لنا في انتظار ظهور نتائجه ان جميع الافغان المدنيين كانوا يستخدمون كدروع بشرية من قبل مسلحي طالبان، وسنعرب عن أسفنا لوقوع القتلى."
"ولكن علينا لربما ان نقول ان الخطا ارتكبه الارهابيون وانه ليس خطأ أبطالنا في القوات الجوية والقوات الخاصة الأمريكية التي يلاحق عناصرها المسلحين في بالابالوك وغنج اباد."
ويمضي فيسك قائلا: "عندما تدمر القوات الأمريكية بيوتا في العراق، يفتح تحقيق، وما أكثر ما يحب الاسرائيليون فتح التحقيقات رغم أنهم لا يكشفون شيئا من نتائجها. وهذا هو تاريخ الشرق الأوسط. نحن دائما على صواب وعندما لا نكون كذلك نعتذر أحيانا ثم نلقي اللوم على الارهابيين."
ويختم بالقول ان "القوانين الدولية تمنع استهداف المناطق الآهلة بالسكان ولو تحصنت فيها القوات المعادية، ومع ذلك قصفنا المدنيين في العراق عام 91 ثم في البوسنة وفي صربيا وفي افغانستان عام 2001 ثم مجددا في العراق عام 2003. كما انني لاحظت أمرا آخر: سواء كانوا مدنيين أبرياء أم ارهابيين أو من طالبان، فاللوم دائما يوجه للمسلمين
Robert Fisk: - بسام الخوري - 05-07-2009
youtube interview 50 minute with robert fisk
interview in englisch
RE: Robert Fisk: - بسام الخوري - 06-03-2009
Robert Fisk: Police state is the wrong venue for Obama's speech
Maybe Barack Obama chose Egypt for his "great message" to Muslims tomorrow because it contains a quarter of the world's Arab population, but he is also coming to one of the region's most repressed, undemocratic and ruthless police states. Egyptian human rights groups – when they are not themselves being harassed or closed down by the authorities – have recorded a breathtaking list of police torture, extra-judicial killings, political imprisonments and state-sanctioned assaults on opposition figures that continues to this day.
The sad truth is that so far did the US descend in moral power under George W Bush that Obama would probably have to deliver his lecture in the occupied West Bank, even Gaza, to change the deep resentment and fury that has built up among Muslims over the past eight years. This, of course, Obama will not do. So Egypt, sadly, it has to be, though he will see nothing of the squalor and fear in which Egyptians live.
Only a week ago, for example, the leader of the opposition Ghad party, Ayman Nour – only released from prison by President Hosni Mubarak's regime in February – complained that he was assaulted in a Cairo street by a man with a make-shift flamethrower, suffering first degree burns to his face. Mr Nour spent three years in jail and is outraged by Obama's visit. "It seems to have been intended to bolster the power of the regimes, not of the people," he said. "We are absolutely astonished that our Egyptian political and civil society are ignored. It gives the impression that American interests are more important than American principles." The investigations of human rights groups show Mr Nour has every reason to be angry.
The latest Cairo Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) report on government abuses in the Arab world is packed with examples of state brutality, including 29 cases of torture and ill-treatment in Egyptian police stations in just six months. The Egyptian Organisation of Human Rights, a separate group, discovered that 10 of the 29 died after torture. In one case, rights groups acquired a videotape of a prisoner being anally raped with a stick by a police officer. Other videos show one of Mubarak's political opponents – a woman – being sexually molested by a plain-clothes police officer in a Cairo street. In 2007 alone, the Egyptian syndicate of journalists reported that 1,000 journalists were summoned to appear before government investigative officials.
A prominent case, the CIHR said, was that of Ibrahim Eissa, editor of Al-Dastour newspaper, who received two months in prison for allegedly publishing "false news" about Mubarak's health, thus "undermining public security". Interestingly, Egyptian state television no longer shows news film of Mubarak climbing aircraft steps or conference podiums; Egyptians, of course, wonder why. When Sa'ad eddin Ibrahim, of the Ibn Khaldun Centre for Development Studies, called upon the US to make its billions of dollars of aid to Egypt provisional upon the country's progress in democratic reform, he was condemned in absentia to two years' hard labour. Several bloggers were detained for calling for a public strike on Mubarak's 80th birthday last year. Al-Jazeera's Howeida Taha was fined 16 months ago for "damaging Egypt's reputation" by shooting a film on torture in police stations.
Human rights workers have been physically assaulted as well as arrested. When Dr Magda Adly, of the Al-Nadeem Centre for the rehabilitation of torture victims, left a police station in Kafr el-Dawa after interviewing four detainees who said they had been tortured, she was knocked unconscious and her arm was broken.
Why does Mubarak allow these obscenities to continue? Does he truly believe the extraordinary presidential election figures – he won the 1999 poll with 93.79 per cent, and an earlier 1993 election with 96.3 per cent – or, in his 81st year, is he afraid of his political opponents, however powerless they may be? Will he discuss all this with Obama? It is unlikely.
In fairness, the CIHR also records a series of shameful attacks on journalists by so-called Islamic courts leading, inevitably, to fines. It also recounts a vast litany of torture and executions by other Arab regimes from Tunisia to Syria, including the occupied West Bank and Gaza. So perhaps Obama should stay clear of the lot.
وفي الاتجاه الآخر نشرت الصحيفة مقال رأي لروبرت فيسك حمل فيه على الأنظمة التي سيزورها الرئيس أوبا وعلى الجولة الرئاسية الأمريكية.
ويلاحظ الكاتب أن سجل السعودية ومصر في مجال احترام الحريات وحقوق الإنسان، لم يثن الرئيس أوباما عن جولته.
ويستشهد فيسك في هذا الصدد بالتصريحات التي أدلى بها زعيم حزب الغد المصري، والمرشح السابق للانتخابات الرئاسية أيمن نور الذي أطلق سراحه قبيل بداية جولة أوباما.
ويقول نور -الذي تعرض لاعتداء مؤخرا-: "يبدو أن هذه الجولة تهدف إلى ممالأة الحكم، وليس تشجيع الشعوب. إننا مندهشون تماما لتجاهل الذي تعرض له المجتمع الامدني. إن ذلك يعطي الانطباع بأن مصالح الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية تعلو على قيمها."
وينهي الكاتب مقاله بالتساؤل عما إذا كان من الأجدر أن لا يقوم أوباما بهذه الجولة فدول المنطقة لا تفضل على بعضها البعض في مجال احترام حقوق الإنسان من محيط العالم العربي إلى الخليج..
RE: Robert Fisk: - بسام الخوري - 06-08-2009
تنشر الاندبندنت مقالا لروبرت فيسك حول الانتخابات اللبنانية، يقول فيه انه "لن تكون هناك جمهورية اسلامية لبنانية، ولا جمهورية لبنانية موالية للغرب، بل ستكون هناك حكومة "انقاذ وطني" تحت رئاسة جنرال سابق ذو سلطة متزايدة."
ويرى فيسك ان واشنطن كانت تفضل لو ان سعد الحريري حقق نصرا "أوضح"، لكن هذه الانتخابات في نظره ستفرز "لبنانا لا يختلف عما كان عليه: معاقا لا يمكن شفاؤه، مفرحا وفقيرا ومعقدا وجميلا وفاسدا وذكيا وديموقراطيا. نعم، ديموقراطيا بكل تأكيد، لكن عصيا على الاصلاح."
"فنظام الانتخابات، يقول الكاتب، هو مزيج مجنون من الطائفية والتمثيل النسبي ونظام اللوائح يعني ان لا أحد يفوز فيها فعلا. والامر لم يختلف يوم أمسن فالاحزاب "المعارضة لسوريا"، وهي مزيج من السنة والدروز ونصف الطائفة المسيحية فعلوا ما بوسعهم لمنع حزب الله من الفوز، بينما الاصوات الشيعية الكثيرة لصالح حزب الله وأمل ومسيحيي ميشيل عون وقفت عائقا امام فوز اصدقاء امريكا في البلاد."
ويتابع فيسك: "لكن الرئيس الذي يجب ان يكون مسيحيا مارونيا بموجب دستور البلاد، سيعمل على تشكيل كثلة وسطية في اجل اقصاه الثانية عشرة ظهرا اليوم، او ذلك ما يتمنى اللبنانيون على الاقل. وعلى هذه الكثلة ان تشمل حزب الله والسنة المعارضين لسوريا والدروز والمسيحيين الذين هم دائما اعداء لبعضهم البعض رغم كونهم اقلية. ومن السخرية انهم سيخرجون الاقوى من هذه الانتخابات لان الرئيس واحد منهم."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/lebanese-voters-prevent-hizbollah-takeover-1699222.html
Lebanese voters prevent Hizbollah takeover
Government of 'national salvation' set to rule after pro-Western Saad Hariri fails to claim decisive victory
By Robert Fisk
Monday, 8 June 2009
Share Close
Supporters of the Free Patriotic Movement of Christian leader Michel Aoun in Beirut yesterday
enlarge
There will be no Islamic Republic of Lebanon. Nor will there be a pro-Western Lebanese republic. There will, after yesterday's vote – for the Hizbollah-Christian coalition and for the secular Sunni-Christian alliance – be a government of "national salvation" in Beirut, run by an ex-army general-president with ever-increasing powers.
Washington would have preferred that Saad Hariri, son of the assassinated ex-prime minister, came out with a clear win. But out of the shadows will come the same crippled, un-healable Lebanon; delightful, unworkable, poor old Lebanon, corrupt, beautiful, vanity-prone, intelligent, democratic – yes, definitely, democratic – and absolutely outside our powers to reform.
The electoral system – a crazed mixture of sectarianism, proportional representation and "list" fixing – means that no one ever really "wins" elections in Lebanon, and yesterday was no different. The "anti-Syrian" parties – the Sunnis, the Druze, half of the Christian community – made sure that their votes prevented a Hizbollah takeover, while the huge Shia vote – for Hizbollah and the Amal party and the Christians who follow the lead of the raving Christian ex-general Michael Aoun – made certain there would be no clear win for America's friends in the country.
Related articles
Lebanon's post-election fate tied to region
But the president, who under Lebanon's unwritten constitution must be a Christian Maronite, will be able to fashion some kind of "central bloc" by midday today – or so all Lebanon hopes – which will include Hizbollah, the forces of anti-Syrian Sunni Islam, the Druze and even the Christians. The latter, always their own worst enemies in Lebanon, albeit a minority, will ironically be more powerful than ever because their president is one of them.
Lebanon deployed up to 60,000 troops and armed police to control the ballot boxes and, to their considerable credit, not a single gun-battle appears to have broken out. Given the personal nature of some of the contests – this is a highly tribal society whatever the modernity of Beirut and its suburbs – this was quite an achievement. Driving around the capital, I found only good-natured checkpoints, handing me papers of candidates' names for whom I should vote, both Christians and Muslims, in the same list. If they wore blue hats, they were for Hariri. If they wore yellow hats – and there were conservative Shia Muslim women without scarves – they were for Hizbollah. If they dressed in orange, they were trying to win votes for Aoun.
The Lebanese, a very shrewd people, have been reading the foreign press and listening to the BBC, Al-Jazeera, even Fox News. They knew that for foreigners – the ajnabi – there was only one story: Lebanon becomes a finger of Iran or Syria – or it remains in America's hands. More dangerously, the Israelis would be able to claim it was a "terrorist" state if Hizbollah won. But then the Israelis would claim it was a "terrorist" state if even one minister was a member of Hizbollah. They will have their way.
By last night, it looked as if the spread of parties would win a share of the vote equal to their numbers; that the Shia Muslims would have the largest group of MPs but without a majority, thus allowing Lebanon's power-sharing system to settle back into its old ways. Why should we worry? Yes, it is corrupt. Tens of thousands of Lebanese flew home to vote – you can't vote abroad in Lebanese elections – so who paid their fare? Who has $30m to spend on air fares?
To be a modern state, Lebanon must de-confessionalise. Its president – currently the ex-general Michel Sleiman – should be elected on merit rather than religion. Its prime minister, who must be a Sunni Muslim, should be elected on merit. But the moment you take away these privileges, Lebanon will cease to be Lebanon – because its very identity is sectarian.
Lebanon is a tiny country, just over 4,000 square miles in size, and it is very definitely Muslim (60 per cent of its four million population are Muslim), but it has 18 religious sects which include the descendants of the poor Armenian Christians who, naked and beaten, dragged themselves here after their genocide at the hands of the Turks in 1915. The Assyrians came this way. So did the Persians, Romans, Crusaders, Mamlukes, Arabs and Ottomans. And the Americans, of course, And the Israelis.
Yesterday's election will probably have "united" the poor old Lebanese yet again. In what cauldron, we can only wait to find out.
The politics and the players
*Who were the main players in the parliamentary elections?
A coalition of pro-Western factions competed against an alliance linking the Iranian-backed, pro-Syria Hizbollah (Party of God) and a Christian faction led by the former army chief Michel Aoun. Sunni Muslims strongly supported the pro-Western grouping, which is led by Saad Hariri, the son of the murdered former prime minister Rafiq Hariri, while Shia Muslims supported the Hizbollah-led alliance. Christians were divided.
*Will these polls affect the wider Middle East?
Electoral success for Hizbollah would increase Syrian and Iranian influence over Lebanon, complicating efforts to restart the Middle East peace process. Israel failed to defeat Hizbollah in a 2006 war and would react negatively to its election. The US regards Hizbollah as a terrorist organisation and had vowed to review its aid to Lebanon if the Shia militant group won a place in government.
RE: Robert Fisk: - بسام الخوري - 07-05-2010
US questions its unwavering support for Israel
Consensus forming in Washington that Israeli government is abusing support with policies seen to be risking US lives
Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu Binyamin Netanyahu, left, arrives in Washington tomorrow to patch up relations with Barack Obama and the US administration. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
There are questions that rarely get asked in Washington. For years, the mantra that America's intimate alliance with Israel was as good for the US as it was the Jewish state went largely unchallenged by politicians aware of the cost of anything but unwavering support.
But swirling in the background when Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, arrives in Washington tomorrow to patch up relations with the White House will be a question rarely voiced until recently: is Israel ‑ or, at the very least, its current government ‑ endangering US security and American troops?
Netanyahu would prefer to be seen as an indispensable ally in confronting Islamist terror. But his insistence on building Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, which is causing a deep rift with Washington, is seen as evidence of a lack of serious interest in the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. That in turn is seen as fuelling hostility towards the US in other parts of the Middle East and beyond, because America is perceived as Israel's shield.
In recent months Barack Obama has said that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a "vital national security interest of the United States". His vice-president, Joe Biden, has confronted Netanyahu in private and told the Israeli leader that Israel's policies are endangering US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senior figures in the American military, including General David Petraeus who has commanded US forces in both wars, have identified Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian land as an obstacle to resolving those conflicts.
More recently, Israel's assault on ships attempting to break the Gaza blockade has compromised relations with Turkey, an important American strategic ally.
A former director of intelligence assessment for the US defence secretary, last month caused waves with a paper called Israel as a Strategic Liability? In it, Anthony Cordesman, who has written extensively on the Middle East, noted a shift in thinking at the White House, the US state department and, perhaps crucially, the Pentagon over the impact of Washington's long-unquestioning support for Israeli policies even those that have undermined the prospects for peace with the Palestinians.
He wrote that the US will not abandon Israel because it has a moral commitment to ensure the continued survival of the Jewish state. "At the same time, the depth of America's moral commitment does not justify or excuse actions by an Israeli government that unnecessarily make Israel a strategic liability when it should remain an asset. It does not mean that the United States should extend support to an Israeli government when that government fails to credibly pursue peace with its neighbours.
"It is time Israel realised that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it test the limits of US patience and exploits the support of American Jews."
Cordesman told the Guardian that the Netanyahu government has maintained a "pattern of conduct" that has pushed the balance toward Israel being more of a liability than an asset.
"This Israeli government pushed the margin too far," he said. "Gaza was one case in point, the issue of construction in Jerusalem, the lack of willingness to react in ways that serve Israel's interests as well as ours in moving forward to at least pursue a peace process more actively."
It was a point made forcefully by Biden to Netanyahu in March after the Israelis humiliated the American during a visit to Jerusalem by announcing the construction of 1,600 more Jewish homes in the city's occupied east.
The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported that at a meeting between the two men, Biden angrily accused Israel's prime minister of jeopardising US soldiers by continuing to tighten the Jewish state's grip on Jerusalem.
"This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace," Biden told Netanyahu.
Obama's chief political adviser, David Axelrod, said the settlement construction plans "seemed calculated to undermine" efforts to get fresh peace talks off the ground and that "it is important for our own security that we move forward and resolve this very difficult issue".
Netanyahu sought to head off the issue when he spoke to pro-Israeli lobbyists in Washington earlier this year. "For decades, Israel served as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism. Today it is helping America stem the tide of militant Islam. Israel shares with America everything we know about fighting a new kind of enemy," he said. "We share intelligence. We co-operate in countless other ways that I am not at liberty to divulge. This co-operation is important for Israel and is helping save American lives."
But that argument is less persuasive to the Americans now. Last month, Israel's ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, said the Jewish state had suffered a "tectonic rift" with America. "There is no crisis in Israel-US relations because in a crisis there are ups and downs," he told Israeli diplomats in Jerusalem. "Relations are in the state of a tectonic rift in which continents are drifting apart."
Oren said that assessments of Israeli policy at the White House have moved away from the historic and ideological underpinnings of earlier administrations in favour of a cold calculation.
Cordesman said it is too early to tell whether Netanyahu has fully grasped that while there will be no change in the fundamental security guarantees the US gives Israel, "the days of the blank cheque are over".
He added: "I think it is clear there is more thought on how to deal with Gaza, how to deal with the underlying humanitarian issues, less creating kinds of pressures which frankly, from the viewpoint of an outside observer, have tended to push Hamas not toward an accommodation but toward a harder line while creating of all things an extremist challenge to Hamas. But until you see the end result, some comments and some token actions don't tell you there's been a significant shift."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/05/us-israel-support
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arabic/inthepress/2010/07/100705_press_today_monday_tc2.shtml
in arabic
الرد على: Robert Fisk: - بسام الخوري - 09-16-2010
فيسك: الحرية والديمقراطية بسوريا
تحت عنوان "الحرية والديمقراطية وحقوق الإنسان بسوريا" نشرت صحيفة ذي إندبندنت البريطانية مقالا مطولا لكاتبها المختص بشؤون الشرق الأوسط روبرت فيسك نقل أبرز ما فيه من خلال مقابلة مع ريبال ابن رفعت الأسد.
ويبدأ فيسك وصفه للقائه بابن رفعت الأسد شقيق الرئيس السوري الراحل حافظ الأسد, بالقول "لا يبدو ريبال الأسد ابنا لمجرم حرب, فهو
يتحدث الإنجليزية والفرنسية بطلاقة, ناهيك عن العربية".
ويضيف أن "هذا الشاب الذي يبدو واثقا من نفسه ينتمي لنخبة دمشق وهو يبلغ من العمر 35 عاما وخريج جامعة بوسطن".
ويمضي الكاتب فيقول إن ريبال تحدث عن الحرية والديمقراطية وحقوق الإنسان, نافيا بلطف لكن بحزم أن يكون أباه مجرم حرب.
لكن فيسك يسخر من ذلك قائلا "لو عدنا إلى ضفاف نهر العاصي في فبراير/شباط 1982 فإنني كنت أقف بجانب إحدى دبابات رفعت الأسد وهي تقصف مسجدا خلال معركة دامية بين نظام الأسد ومسلحين سنة في مدينة حماة, وكان طاقم الدبابة وكثير من الجنود حولها يرتدون الزي العسكري الوردي الخاص بكتائب رفعت".
ويضيف الكاتب قائلا إن معركة حماة التي لم تكن تقل شراسة عن حرب الجزائر أو العراق، شهدت إزهاق رفعت ورجاله لما يصل إلى عشرين ألف نفس في شوارع وأنفاق المدينة.
كما يذكر فيسك أن حافظ الأسد قال بعد ذلك إن المتمردين استحقوا الموت مئات المرات.
وينقل فيسك دفاع ريبال عن أبيه حين يقول "يمكن لأي كان أن يرتدي زيا عسكريا ورديا, بل إن كل إنسان وقتئذ كان يود أن يبدو كما لو كان من القوات الخاصة, ووالدي لم يكن في حماة, بل كان حينها في دمشق".
وهذا هو رفعت الذي يقول فيسك إنه كان دوما يعتقد أنه يجب أن يقف جنبا إلى جنب مع رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي الأسبق أرييل شارون في قفص اتهام مجرمي الحرب, لكنه اليوم يعيش وسط لندن, مما يدفع فيسك إلى التساؤل: "هل كنا على علم بذلك؟".
وهل تكشف الحكومة البريطانية عن حقيقة وجود "جزار حماة" –كما يعرّفه الناجون من تلك العملية- يعيش غير بعيد من المكان الذي جلس معي فيه ابنه في فندق ماربل آرتش بلندن؟".
ويؤكد فيسك أن ريبال لم يكن يرغب في الحديث عن أبيه وإنما عن "التجمع القومي الموحد" الذي يقول إنه يتولى تمويله شخصيا.
ويتحدث عن رغبته في رؤية سوريا جديدة يجد فيها الجميع مكانه ويتمتع فيها الجميع بحقوق متساوية, دون أن تكون أسيرة أحداث الماضي.
ويرى فيسك أن ريبال يمكن أن يكون معارضا سياسيا في سوريا ديمقراطية, وينقل عنه قوله إنه يريد "التركيز على مستقبل بلدنا, والبلد لا يمكن أن يبنى على أحقاد وضغائن الماضي, بل علينا أن نتسامح ويصفح بعضنا عن بعض –أما عن النسيان فلست أدري- وعلينا أن نعيش معا، كل السوريين الذين يعتقدون في الديمقراطية وحقوق الإنسان، لبدء عهد جديد, فكما انهار جدار برلين وسقط الاتحاد السوفياتي فإن سوريا ستتغير".
أما الرئيس بشار الأسد, فإن ريبال يتحدث عنه باحترام ممزوج بالأسف, قائلا إنه "لا يزال يحكم في ظل شبح أبيه", مؤكدا أن سوريا لم تشهد في ما مضى من حكمه تغييرا حقيقيا.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-freedom-democracy-and-human-rights-in-syria-2080463.html
Ribal al-Assad gives our writer a rare insight into the dynasty that has shaped modern Syria
Thursday, 16 September 2010
*
Syrian students hold candles and portraits of President Bashar al-Assad during a demonstration in Damascus last year
*
Ribal al-Assad doesn't look like the son of a war criminal; fluent English, fluent French, fluent Arabic (of course), fluffy black hair and brown eyes, a youngish 35, Boston graduate, self-assured, a member of the Damascus elite, sitting in a Marble Arch hotel, turning down my offer of coffee, talking about freedom and democracy and human rights in Syria, denying – gently but forcefully – that his father, Rifaat, is a war criminal.
Funny that. Back in February 1982, on the banks of the Orontes river, I stood next to one of Rifaat's tanks as it shelled a mosque in the blood-boltered battle between the Assad regime and the Sunni insurgents of Hama. The tank crew and many of the soldiers around them were wearing the pink uniforms of Rifaat's Special Brigades.
The Sunni uprising – as ferocious as the Algerian war or Iraq, regime party families slaughtered in their homes – was real enough. So was the brutality of Rifaat's lads. Up to 20,000 souls were reported killed in the streets and underground tunnels of Hama.
Related articles
The President of Syria, Hafez al-Assad, said later that the insurgents deserved to die a hundred times. Rifaat was Hafez's brother. Hafez was therefore Ribal's uncle, the present President – Bashar – his cousin. "But anyone can wear a pink uniform," Ribal says. "Everyone wanted to wear pink uniforms then, to look like the special forces. My father was not in Hama. He was in Damascus at the time." A mere lieutenant-colonel, I am to understand.
And Rifaat, it turns out – a man whom I have always believed should stand, alongside Ariel Sharon, in a war crimes dock – is now living in central London! Did we know this? Does the British Government advertise the fact that the Butcher of Hama – for so he was known to the survivors – now lives not very far from where his son sits with me in Marble Arch? But I have to be frank. Ribal was a bit put out by my insistence that our little chat must include his Dad. He wanted to talk about his so-called "United National Alliance" (self-funded, he claims), his desire to see a new, inclusive, equal rights Syria – not a dredging up of the past. Ribal was eight years old at the time of Hama, scarcely to blame for the sins of his father – though that is not a phrase of which he would approve. A businessman managing export-import between China and the Arab world, he insists he wants no political role in a "new" Syria and bursts into laughter when I suggest he might like to be president. Most would-be presidents, I should add, burst into laughter before assuring the world that they have no such ambitions.
Personally, I suspect young Ribal would like to be a political opponent in a democratic Syria. He shakes his head. But let's face it, Ribal is a strong sell. "We want to concentrate on our future country. A country cannot be built on past grudges. We have to forgive – I don't know about forget – and we have to live together, all Syrians who believe in democracy and human rights, to have a new era. The Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union collapsed. Syria will change."
I point out, cruelly perhaps, that the Soviet Union still exists in Syria, despite all the economic changes which Bashar wants to bring about. But I tell him, too – for Ribal hasn't lived in Syria since the age of nine, save for a few brief visits – that Syria is not the police state it was under Uncle Hafez. You can make jokes about the regime in government ministries, private banks are creeping into the market, a critical remark about Bashar does not encourage a visit from the mukhabarat plain-clothes guys.
Ribal nods sagely. He knows all this. But he wants Syria to break its relations with Iran – a policy that must surely earn the gratitude of the Americans, not to mention Israel. US-Israeli demands that Syria sever its connections with the Islamic Republic are central to the West's "peace process" for the Middle East. But to expect Syria to deprive itself of such a powerful ally is ridiculous.
Damascus is the West's gate to Iran, Bashar is the middle-man between Washington and Tehran. Without Iran, Syria will be weak enough to make peace with Israel – like Egypt and, later, Jordan and Yasser Arafat. This would be a peace of the weak rather than a peace of the just. "No – Iran wants to have the Persian Empire back again!" exclaims Son of Rifaat. "The Iranians are not trustworthy. You see what happened in Iraq? Who was funding the insurgents, who was training them? Iranians are arrogant, especially of course with the Arabs. Look how they treat their own Arabs in Ahwaz. They are not even allowed to speak Arabic." I point out, politely, that this is not true.
And President Bashar al-Assad? Ribal speaks of him with both respect and regret. "He is still governing under the ghost of his father. Each person in Syria has an interest in the secret service. Bashar should have declared national unity as soon as he took over. He did things bit by bit, with internet cafes and so on. But it was not enough. There was no real change."
I suggest that Bashar's eloquent and very intelligent wife Asma is a great credit to him. "She is a very good woman – she has tried hard," Ribal replies rather dismissively. No, he doesn't want to see a "coup d'etat" in Syria. "My father left Syria because he didn't want bloodshed. A 'coup' means dictatorship and dictatorship breeds corruption and corruption breeds terrorism. We are campaigning internationally for a new Syria. We have no relations with Khaddam" – Syria's former foreign minister and vice-president, currently sulking in opposition in Paris – "and we had no relations with Kenaan". Kenaan was Syrian army intelligence commander in Lebanon when Damascus ruled Beirut – Ribal says he knows nothing about Kenaan's brutality then – but says he was a good man (Kenaan's son is married to Ribal's first cousin) albeit that he shot himself in the mouth after being made minister of interior. As for Bashar's brother Basil – who would be president if he had not died in a car crash – "he visited my father when we were children. He came to see me in France. I think Basil would have known that national unity was in the interests of Syria. He would have understood that independent parties could exist in opposition to the government." But I return to Rifaat – who physically looks like an even grimmer version of his brother Hafez – and his eventual departure from Syria. Ribal denies that Rifaat tried to stage a "coup" – which doesn't square with my own memory of Rifaat's tanks on the streets of Damascus – but says his father was a critic of Hafez's 1976 military advance into Lebanon. "My father was against it – he told my uncle: 'If you send Syrian troops into Lebanon, they will come back in coffins.' He said that Bashir Gemayel and his Lebanese people were nationalists. And he really never went to Hama. It was the defence minister, Mustafa Tlass, who said later that at the time of Hama, he was signing between 200 and 250 death sentences every week."
Because of the Muslim uprising, Ribal was escorted to his French school by bodyguards, a family friend was murdered, he had to live in a walled compound in his home on the Mezze boulevard, his house was attacked. "Saddam Hussein funded the Muslim Brotherhood, they were trained in Iraq and Sudan. So the Baath party decided that those in the Muslim Brotherhood were traitors. I am against all extremism."
Interesting man, Ribal, a good horseback rider (like Basil), Thai boxing enthusiast, a competent skier. "I could have had a life of privilege," he says. I ask him if Rifaat would meet me. "I'll ask him," he says. Full of hope, I am...
The Hama Massacre
* Hama was the setting for the most ferocious uprising ever staged against Hafez al-Assad's regime.
* The killings followed years of antagonism between the conservative Muslim Brotherhood and the nationalist regime of President Assad.
* The Muslim Brotherhood had tried to unseat the regime through targeted political killings and urban warfare, including an attempt to kill the President.
* During a search of Hama to try to root out dissident forces, Syrian troops came across the hideout of a local commander and were ambushed. As troop reinforcements were rushed to the city, the mosques called for a holy war against Assad's regime on 3 February 1982. The Muslim Brotherhood led the rebellion with guns, knives and grenades.
* The leadership's response was harsh. "Death a thousand times to the hired Muslim Brothers," Assad shouted in fury. "Death a thousand times to the Muslim Brothers, the criminal Brothers, the corrupt Brothers."
* The Syrian army, led by Assad's brother Rifaat, destroyed half of the city with tank shellfire and killed up to 20,000 people.
* Rifaat was seen as the natural successor to his brother, who ruled for three decades, but was accused of preparing to take over the country with his special forces. He was driven out of Damascus.
الرد على: Robert Fisk: - بسام الخوري - 09-18-2010
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/05/201052574726865274.html
http://orientbruecke.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/robert-fisk-warum-hassen-sie-den-westen-so-fragen-wir-uns/
article in deutsch
Robert Fisk: Warum hassen sie den Westen so, fragen wir uns
Robert Fisk: Warum hassen sie den Westen so, fragen wir uns
Januar 7, 2009 — orientbruecke
Wieder einmal hat Israel den Palästinensern das Tor zur Hölle aufgerissen. 40 Zivilisten – Flüchtlinge – wurden in einer Schule der Vereinten Nationen getötet, 3 weitere starben in einer zweiten UN-Schule. Nicht schlecht für eine einzige Nachtschicht in Gaza. Es ist die Arbeit einer israelischen Armee, die an die „Reinheit der Waffen“ glaubt. Warum sollten wir uns wundern?
Oder haben wir die 17500 Toten der israelischen Libanoninvasion, 1982, schon vergessen? Fast alle waren Zivilisten, Frauen und Kinder. Oder denken wir an die 1700 palästinensischen Zivilisten, die bei den Massakern in Sabra und Schatila massakriert wurden. 1996 wurden in einer UNO-Basis in Kana 106 libanesische Flüchtlinge, Zivilisten, getötet – mehr als die Hälfte waren Kinder. Oder denken wir an die Menschen, die aus dem libanesischen Dorf Marwahin flohen, als die Israelis ihnen befohlen hatten, ihre Häuser zu verlassen – um sie anschließend vom Helikopter aus abzuschlachten. Das geschah 2006 im Libanonkrieg. Bei diesem und anderen israelischen Luftschlägen während der Libanoninvasion 2006 starben insgesamt 1000 Libanesen, fast alles Zivilisten.
Ausgesprochen erstaunlich, dass so viele westliche Führer – Präsidenten und Premierminister – und ich fürchte auch viele Redakteure und Journalisten, der alten Lügen aufsitzen, Israel gäbe sich große Mühe, zivile Opfer zu vermeiden. Wiedereinmal erklärte uns ein israelischer Botschafter: „Israel tut alles, was möglich ist, um zivile Opfer zu vermeiden“. Er sagte es wenige Stunden vor dem Massaker in Gaza. Jeder Präsident und jeder Kanzler, der diese Lüge wiederholte – sie ist eine Entschuldigung, um einen Waffenstillstand zu vermeiden -, hat das Blut des Massakers der letzten Nacht an seinen Händen.
Hätte George Bush 48 Stunden zuvor den Mut aufgebracht, einen sofortigen Waffenstillstand zu fordern, die 40 Zivilisten – alte Leute, Frauen und Kinder – wären noch am Leben.
Was hier passiert, ist mehr als nur beschämend. Es ist eine Schande. Ist der Begriff ‘Kriegsverbrechen’ zu hoch gegriffen? Hätte die Hamas dieses Greuel verübt, würden wir von Kriegsverbrechen sprechen. Ja, es war ein Kriegsverbrechen, leider. Nachdem ich über so viele Massenmorde durch die Armeen des Nahen und Mittleren Ostens berichtet habe – begangen von syrischen, jordanischen, irakischen, iranischen und israelischen Truppen – sollte ich eigentlich ein Zyniker sein. Israel behauptet, es kämpfe unseren Kampf gegen den „internationalen Terror“. Die Israelis behaupten, sie kämpften in Gaza für uns, für die westlichen Ideale, für unsere Sicherheit und unseren Schutz – und sie kämpften nach unseren Standards. Daher sind wir Komplizen des brutalen Gemetzels, das über Gaza gekommen ist.
Ich habe über Rechtfertigungen berichtet, die die Israelische Armee bei Greueln dieser Art in der Vergangenheit anführte. In den nächsten Stunden könnten diese Entschuldigungen erneut hervorgekramt werden. Daher nenne ich schon jetzt einige: Die Palästinenser würden ihre eigenen Flüchtlinge töten, wird es heißen; die Palästinenser würden Tote ausgraben und in die Ruinen legen; die Schuld liege letztendlich bei den Palästinensern, weil sie eine bewaffnete Gruppe unterstützten; bewaffnete Palästinenser würden bewusst unschuldige Flüchtlinge als Deckung missbrauchen.
Das Massaker von Sabra und Schatila wurde von Israel rechtsgerichteten Verbündeten – den Falangisten – ausgeführt, während israelische Truppen 48 Stunden lang zusahen und nichts unternahmen. Das wurde selbst durch eine israelische Untersuchungskommission (die Kahane-Kommission) festgestellt. Als man Israel die Schuld gab, beschuldigte die damalige israelische Regierung unter Menachem Begin ihrerseits die Welt der Schmähung. 1996 feuerte die israelische Artillerie Granaten auf eine UNO-Basis in Kana. Die Israelis behaupteten, auch Hisbollah-Kämpfer hätten in der Basis Schutz gesucht. Es war eine Lüge. Als im Libanonkrieg 2006 über 1000 Menschen starben, lastete man es einfach der Hisbollah an. Der Konflikt wurde ausgelöst, als zwei israelische Soldaten an der Grenze durch die Hisbollah entführt wurden.
Bei einem anderen Massaker in Kana behauptete Israel, die toten Kinder seien aus einem Friedhof ausgegraben worden. Auch das war eine Lüge. Das Massaker in der libanesischen Ortschaft Marwahin wurde niemals gerechtfertigt. Die Menschen des Dorfes waren aufgefordert worden, zu fliehen. Als sie die Anordnung der Israelis befolgten, wurden sie aus der Luft durch ein israelisches Kampflugzeug angegriffen. Die Flüchtlinge hielten ihren Lastwagen an und stellten ihre Kinder rund um das Fahrzeug, mit dem sie geflohen haben, um den israelischen Piloten zu zeigen, dass es sich um unschuldige Menschen handelte. Die israelischen Helikopter mähten sie aus kurzer Distanz nieder. Nur zwei Menschen überlebten – weil sie sich tot stellten. Israel hat sich noch nicht einmal entschuldigt.
12 Jahre zuvor griff ein israelischer Helikopter (im Libanon) eine Ambulanz an, die Zivilisten aus einem Nachbardorf abholte. Auch in diesem Fall hatte Israel die Flucht angeordnet. Bei diesem Vorfall starben 3 Kinder und 2 Frauen. Die Israelis behaupteten, ein Hisbollah-Kämpfer hätte sich in der Ambulanz versteckt. Dies erwies sich als falsch. Über all diese Greueltaten habe ich berichtet. Ich habe sie alle untersucht und mit den Überlebenden gesprochen. Mehrere meiner Kollegen taten ebenso. Unser Schicksal ist es, mit dem schlimmsten aller Etiketten belegt zu werden: Wir wurden beschuldigt, Antisemiten zu sein.
Das Folgende schreibe ich, ohne den geringsten Zweifel, dass es so kommen wird: Wir werden (im Falle Gaza) alle diese skandalösen Konstrukte erneut hören. Sie werden lügen, die Hamas sei an allem schuld. Der Himmel weiß, es gibt wirklich genug, dessen man die Hamas beschuldigen könnte, aber nicht für dieses Verbrechen. Wir werden die Lüge von den aus den Friedhöfen ausgegrabenen Leichen zu hören bekommen und mit großer Sicherheit die Lüge, dass Hamas in der bombardierten UN-Schule war. Und ziemlich sicher wird auch wieder die Antisemitismus-Lüge auf den Tisch kommen. Unsere Führer werden unruhig hin- und herrutschen und die Welt daran gemahnen, dass die Hamas als Erste den Waffenstillstand gebrochen hätten. Stimmt nicht. Israel hat ihn am 4. November gebrochen, als es Gaza bombardierte und dabei 6 Palästinenser tötete sowie am 17. November, als bei einem weiteren israelischen Bombardement 4 Palästinenser starben.
Stimmt, Israel hat das Recht auf Sicherheit. 20 getötete Israelis in den letzten 10 Jahren ist eine dunkle Ziffer. Aber 600 getötete Palästinenser in nur einer Woche und Tausende getötete Palästinenser seit 1948 – das ist eine ganz andere Dimension. Die Massaker begannen 1948 mit dem Massaker von Deir Yassin. Diese Tat half, eine Massenflucht der Palästinenser von jenem Palästinensergebieten auszulösen, die israelisch werden sollten.
Das alles erinnert nicht an das ‘normale’ Blutvergießen’ in dieser Region, vielmehr an die Greuel der Balkankriege in den 90gern. Und sollte ein Araber einmal seinem Zorn freien Lauf lassen und seiner blinden, aufrührerischen Wut gegen den Westen in die Tat umsetzen, werden wir sagen: „Was hat das mit uns zu tun? Nichts. Warum hassen sie uns?“ Aber sagen wir nicht, dass wir die Antwort nicht kennen.
Orginalartikel: Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask?
Übersetzt von: Andrea Noll
Veröffentlicht in Allgemein, Islamfeindlichkeit. Schlagwörter: Armee, gaza, israel, Krieg, Kriegsverbrechen, Libanon, Massaker, Palästina, Robert Fisk, Terror, UN, UNO, Westen. 1 Kommentar »
Eine Antwort zu „Robert Fisk: Warum hassen sie den Westen so, fragen wir uns“
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjoGLA4mVxU
RE: Robert Fisk: - -ليلى- - 09-29-2010
يوم الجمعة الساعه 10:30 بتوقيت القاهرة على قناة on TV
فى برنامج اخر كلام مع يسرى فودة
هيكون فى حلقة مع روبرت فيسك دكتور بسام
و ممكن تشوفها اون لاين هنا
http://www.ontveg.com/binn/content.cfm?page=live
و اعتذر عن كتابه المداخلة هنا
الرد على: Robert Fisk: - بسام الخوري - 09-29-2010
thank you laila
i hope we can see allways this programm on youtube