Across the Bay

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The Golan Lie

The Syrian regime's tool in Oklahoma once again confirms the reading that Syria's primary goal is control over Lebanon, not the Golan.

In an interview on NPR, the regime's propagandist has a rare moment of candor:

If you [the US] bring Syria into negotiations and you try to settle a peace with Israel, it means normalizing relations with Syria. Which is what Hamilton and the others are calling for. It means pushing Lebanon to, not the back burner, but it means you bring Lebanon into a larger deal.

What's the key missing word here, one that never once gets mentioned? The Golan. The chronically and compulsively mendacious flack, despite himself, manages to unconsciously slip the real deal in this statement about what the real goal behind the Syrian regime's desire to restart talks with Israel really is. It has nothing to do with the Golan or with Israel. It has to do with, 1- getting the US to normalize relations with Syria, which would mean dropping the multiple UNSC resolutions, sanctions, the international investigation and tribunal into the assassinations perpetrated by the murderous regime in Syria, ending Syria's political isolation, undermining Saudi Arabia, and so on. And 2- it means handing Lebanon back to Syria in a "larger deal."

The funnier thing is that this regime hand completely misread the Baker-Hamilton report (assuming he even read it at all, which I doubt), and merely reflected the way the Syrian regime sees and understands it. The report, for all its awful faults, has the following to say about Syria's interference in Lebanon:


• Syria’s full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of August 2006, which provides the framework for Lebanon to regain sovereign control over its territory.

• Syria’s full cooperation with all investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon, especially those of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel.

• A verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and the use of Syrian territory for transshipment of Iranian weapons and aid to Hezbollah. (This step would do much to solve Israel’s problem with Hezbollah.)

• A verifiable cessation of Syrian efforts to undermine the democratically elected government of Lebanon.

In other words, even in the ill-conceived Baker-Hamilton report there is no "larger deal" about Lebanon. Lebanon is off the table (and these recommendations sound awfully similar to the mainstream policy. It's not the "neocon" policy as this pathetic tool tried to sell it. It's the recommendation of the Democrat-led House.). It's not on the back burner (the Syrian regime wishes). It's very much at the heart of the conditions and demands. As I've noted in the past, the Europeans have made the same proposal: restarting peace talks with Israel requires Syria leaving Lebanon be for good. Assad, naturally and expectedly, refused. The real goal is Lebanon. The regime's apologist only betrays regime think on this, showing (and advocating) its interpretation of things, which completely goes against the report he's relying on to sell this repugnant policy of "dealing" Lebanon to the murderous hands of the Syrian regime.

He had made the same slip back in February, again completely contradicting the Baker-Hamilton report on which he relies, in an interview with the Kuwaiti al-Siyassah:

Q: Does a détente in US-Syria relations signal a new era of bilateral relations, or just an agreement over common issues?

A: I don't think we are witnessing a détente in the relations between the two countries. After the failure of the Israelis in Lebanon and the Democrats' victory in the congressional midterm elections, many European countries and many US members of congress concluded that the US must change its policy in the Middle East. Many came to Damascus to see if they could create an opening for this change and determine its direction.

However, Washington still insists on separating the Iraqi case from the Lebanese case. In the end, the US is still the only superpower which could direct the West's foreign policy as long as Bush insists on continuing with his policy. Europe and the US congress have to follow him in that case. (Emphasis mine.)

Q: Did Syria get American guarantees in return for its participation in Iraq, as in 1990?

A: Syria is as far as it could be from getting American guarantees or rewards for coordinating and cooperating on Iraq, since Bush is still repeating the idea that "Syria knows what to do in Iraq" and he will not abandon the Seniora government. (Emphasis mine.)

Perhaps one should remind this agent of influence of the recent Executive Order by the President about anyone involved in the undermining of the democratic government of Lebanon and of Lebanon's stability, independence, and democracy.

Anyway, it's clear from these uncharacteristically candid slips, that both on Iraq and Israel, the real issue for Assad is Lebanon, and it always was. The termination of the tribunal, the termination of all the UN Security Council resolutions, and the termination of Lebanon's independence and its renewed enslavement.

I suppose we should thank this otherwise perennially disingenuous apologist for unwittingly divulging the truth: i.e., that he is advocating the renewed colonization of an independent state and destroying its democratic system, the scuttling of international resolutions, international law, letting terrorist murderers get away with assassinating lawmakers, ministers, judges and journalists, repressing the sovereign will of a free people and handing it over to a terrorist Islamist militia.

This is what passes as "analysis" and "academic" work: advocacy on behalf of terrorists.

Addendum: Note how that tool misrepresented all the facts on that show. He was trying to make it seem that there was a debate about the validity of the intelligence regarding the Israeli strike, and this is why he attacked Bolton's credibility, in order to pooh-pooh the intelligence as not credible.

But listen to what the NYT's Mark Mazzetti says, right after Bolton's segment ends. He says, "we don't think there was an intense debate over the intelligence itself," whether the site was a nuclear site or not. The debate was "what to do about the intelligence," and how to respond to that. Once again, you can count on that agent of influence for complete distortion.