Al-Ayyam
In his response to our piece "Assad's Houla Propaganda",
John Rosenthal engages in a rather hypocritical and illogical retort.
He initiates his screed by accusing us of engaging in a "bait and
switch" regarding our correction of the half-truths presented in his
piece covering the Houla Massacre and the sources he utilized. What
better way to go about establishing that we were engaged in such a
practice than by going off on a tangential feat of mental gymnastics
about how Al Qaeda is involved in the conflict, recycling the same
disproved data, and then arguing that critiquing the sources he used was
not an effective manner of criticism? While Rosenthal accuses us of
engaging in conspiratorial thinking, it is actually the theory he is
pushing on the massacre that requires one to believe in an outlandish
conspiracy.
Rosenthal asks what we would, "make of the
string of suicide bombings in Damascus, in Aleppo, and elsewhere in
Syria". This line of questioning bears no relation to our piece, which
dealt with the specifics of the Houla Massacre, the erroneous claims of
the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung(FAZ), and the very narrative
that has sprouted up around conspiracy websites. Instead, this
tangential line implies that Al Qaeda was involved in the massacre,
which in turn is simply more narrative. What is more, we both clearly
stated our assessment about the potential rise of a Sunni Islamist
Syria:
"The outcome of Assad's removal, assuming
that Syria or even its Sunni heartland can hold together, may well be a
new Sunni Islamist regime. However, this does not excuse the regime's
attempts to disseminate patent falsehoods."
Obviously, Rosenthal hasn't read our other pieces discussing sympathizers of Al Qaeda in the Free Syrian Army or the "very real fear of Sunni Islamism" held by minorities in Syria.
In the (FAZ) story Rosenthal promotes, Alawites and Sunni converts to Shiism were the victims of the Houla Massacre.
For starters, even the master propaganda
spinners in Syria's official media made no mention of Alawites and Shi'a
being killed during the Houla Massacre. The FAZ also stated that of
those killed in the massacre, "the family of a Sunni member of the
Syrian parliament who is regarded as a collaborator" was also murdered.
Yet, the only corroborating source for this claim is the state-run
outlet Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA).
Alex Thomson, a journalist with Britain's
Channel 4, actually visited the area of Houla. Thomson can hardly be
called a propagandist for the rebels and did not hesitate to point out
that some rebels tried to get him killed near the city of Qusayr in order to score a propaganda victory against the Assad regime.
He also observed that the Syrian army began
shelling the area as soon as left the immediate vicinity, yet those who
believe the Houla massacre was perpetrated by rebels claim that there
has been no evidence of shelling by the Syrian armed forces. Even the
Assad regime does not deny the evidence of shelling, but instead argues
it was the work of militias armed with "heavy weapons."Thomson then visited the Alawite and Shi'a villages
in the area of Houla. The villagers claimed that the victims of the
massacre were actually casualties from internecine strife between Sunni
tribes. They do not claim that those slaughtered were Alawites or Shi'a.
The Houla massacre story forwarded by FAZ
doesn't add up. Why would Sunnis carry out a burial of massacred
Alawites and Shi'a and then do so in the fashion utilized by Sunnis? FAZ
claims it was to trick the media. Then why was there no outcry by the
Alawite or Shi'a communities? What about the children shot and
stabbed—Did those wounds simply appear due to a communal stigmata
brought on by their hatred of Bashar al-Assad? Indeed, Rosenthal must
believe that the injuries suffered by the locals whom Thomson interviewed were part of an elaborately faked P.R. campaign.
Rosenthal then goes on to re-cite Dutch
"Middle East expert" Martin Janssen. A Damascus based Arabist, Janssen
portrays himself as someone whose primary concern is about the rise of Islamism. It is also clear that he has followed the liberationist line on Tunisia and Egypt, echoing Ed Husain'sclaims
that what differentiated the protests in Egypt from those in Syria was
that the former were crying for freedom while the latter were chanting
'Allah u Akbar' and 'jihad'. The demagogue George Galloway (another friend of the Syrian regime) parrots the same line. Since he started reporting from Syria, Janssen's long list of articles have been little more than rehashing the same old pro-regime line.
Rosenthal's illogical retort became even
more disturbing when he mentioned the murder of opposition doctor Adnan
Wahbi. Without a shred of evidence and lacking any connection to the
original post he cited, Rosenthal absurdly declares Wahbi was killed by
the opposition because he called for all sides to put down their
weapons. In fact, the other article by Hermann he cites makes no such
assertion, and the Syrian opposition claim Wahbi as a martyr murdered by the regime's security forces.
Adding further speciousness to his
response, Rosenthal addresses the issue of Syrian nun cum Assad
propagandist Mother Agnes-Miriam and 9/11 conspiracy theorist Thierry
Meyssan's interview with her, by stating, "in a French media landscape
as bereft of any semblance of balanced reporting on the Syria crisis as
the American one, I can assure Al-Tamimi and Smyth that she will not
have received many such requests [for interview]."
However, Rosenthal clearly didn't do the
necessary research to prove his assertion. In 2012, Le Monde, one of
France's major newspapers, uncritically cited figures presented Agnès-Mariam. France's Europe1, a major French radio station, also interviewed Agnès-Mariam in January. Agnès-Mariam was also interviewed by La Vie Magazine,
where she stated that she continued to support having Bashar al-Assad
as president of Syria and essentially repeated the line that unrest in
Syria is all due to a Western plot, echoing the theories pushed by
conspiracy theorists and pro-Assad propagandists.
Rosenthal claims he "was also aware that
this ephemeral connection would provide fodder for the defenders and
publicists of the rebellion to taint Mother Agnès-Mariam with guilt by
association." Rosenthal's grasp of the very narrative we refute is
equally disquieting. We didn't simply include conspiracy theorist
Thierry Meyssan to establish a "guilt by association" implication
against Mother Agnès-Mariam, but to establish the fringe atmosphere
where this exact pro-Assad line originated, to whom it was marketed, and
why.
Rosenthal continues his defense of
Agnès-Mariam by muddying the waters, adding, "Perhaps Mother
Agnès-Mariam ought, after all, to have refused Meyssan's interview."
Mother Agnès-Mariam didn't simply accept a
single interview from the likes of the batty and conspiracy-minded
Voltaire Network, she actively pursued them, inviting "journalists" from
the group to visit her and travel around Syria in November 2011. In
addition to posting articles from the Voltaire Network on her official website, she contributed a number of pieces to site.
Agnès-Mariam didn't stop with the crackpots
at the Voltaire Network. On the same 2011 trip she helped organize, she
also brought along Webster Griffin Tarpley. Like Meyssan, Tarpley is another renowned 9/11 conspiracy theorist frequently contributing to Iran's English language propaganda channel, Press TV. Tarpley went on to repeat the narrative the Damascus disinformation network hoped to propagate.
If anything, the connection with the
conspiratorial fringe was hardly, "ephemeral". Instead, Agnès-Mariam
vigorously sought out these types in the effort to attain an uncritical
audience who would happily disseminate the information she and her peers
presented.
Creating the image of a defenseless and
objective Catholic nun who is plainly ignored by the Western press,
Rosenthal attempts to place Agnès-Mariam in a protective bubble, even
accusing us of exposing her in an ad hominem style.
At one point, Rosenthal asks rhetorically:
"Why in the world would Catholic priests and nuns want or need to serve
as 'Assad propagandists?" This is a classic example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. The Assad regime has also been able to compel praise
from parents of children it has tortured to death: Why can't Catholic
nuns and priests parrot the Syrian government's line or transmit
disinformation that aids the regime?
For Christians of the Middle East, their
fate in this time of turmoil is a complex conundrum. The threat of
"Islam" has been a constant, whether real or supposed. Thus, in the
minds of some Christian leaders, for communal survival, their political
moves often come down to supporting what they perceive as the lesser of
two evils. Nevertheless, this shouldn't be an excuse to blatantly lie
and push narrative.
The fact of the matter is—and this is
understood by the Assad regime—that in many Western political circles,
the Iraq War and the subsequent ethnic cleansing, murders, and
displacement of Christians is still fresh. While the Iraq War has
provided beneficial hindsight in assessing what may become of threatened
minority groups, the same sentiments created by the war have been
manipulated by the Syrian regime in an attempt to establish a
hyper-simplified, if not manifestly incorrect claim they are the
guardians of secular order against "extremism," even as the Assad
dynasty has (i) supported Hezbollah, (ii) killed thousands of Christians in Lebanon (besides debilitating their political power) and (iii) provided backing for al-Qa'ida and other Sunni Islamist groups in Iraq renowned for their brutality against civilians.
As before, Rosenthal establishes his
ability to twist and ignore demonstrable facts. Rosenthal, Mother Agnès
-Mariam, and others pushing the "all opposition are Al Qaeda and
committing heinous crimes against minorities" message, establish their
own conspiratorial explanation concerning why their speciously
manufactured claims are ignored.
Emanating from the depths of Bizzaro World,
these commentators attempt to establish that the innately diverse
nature of Western media is actually a monolithic and biased (against
them) source, whereas a dictator's media outlets and propagandists
sympathetic to the regime are reporting "the truth."
If establishing the dubious nature of
sources and claims made by Rosenthal was not enough to demonstrate the
lack of credibility, he should also know that the FAZ piece was rife
with errors. For example, Tony Badran noted:
"[T]he report stated that the supposed
Alawite victims were from the 'Shomaliya' family. The confused German
author—and everyone who uncritically picked up his report—didn't even
bother to check his facts or his sources. There is an Alawite village by
the name of al-Shumariya, near Houla, which the regime's media and its
third-party amplifiers claimed was attacked by 'armed gangs.'"
For further evidence of the errors and inaccuracies of the FAZ piece, see this post by Paul Woodward,
in which he notes, with confirmation from Human Rights Watch, that the
Abd el-Razzaq family that comprised the majority of the victims was Sunni.
This tells against the FAZ piece's claim that "those killed were almost
exclusively from families belonging to Houla's Alawi and Shia
minorities."
As Rosenthal notes, the pieces he quoted
use unnamed "monastery sources". In fact, for Rosenthal and his ilk all
roads lead back to the same monastery run by Agnes-Miriam. In any case,
this establishes the need to investigate her ideological leanings and
what messages she promotes.
To back up his assertions, Rosenthal
discusses the experience of Belgian priest Daniel Maes, who spent time
at the Monastery with Mother Agnès. For Rosenthal, Maes' testimony is
confirmation that Mother Agnès' story is perfectly acceptable.
What is implied is that Maes is a
completely objective Westerner critically analyzing the situation for
the truth. Yet, a cursory search on Google establishes Maes' wasn't
simply one of many, "other persons who have spent time at the
monastery". Maes is actually a personal friend
of Mother Agnès. After meeting Mother Agnès in 2004 he hosted her in
Belgium where she gave speeches since 2006. He had been visiting her
monastery since 2010.
But what happens to anyone—especially
clergy—within the regime's grasp who "draws outside the lines"? Take the
case of Father Dall'Oglio. A resident of the Mar Musa Monastery for
over thirty years, the father was expelled from Syria by the Assad regime for the simple offense of stating that he felt
Syria's non-violent protesting youth were, "suffering enormously to
achieve their desire of freedom and dignity…There are so many young
persons that are put in jail and tortured, just because they have
expressed, nonviolently, their opinions." He didn't openly sympathize
with the FSA –just non-violent protesters—and he was thrown out!
Neither of us is arguing for intervention
and we are certainly not trying to underplay Islamism. As analysts with a
deep interest in studying this turbulent section of the Levant, we are
not interested in moralism or propaganda from either side, but simply
want to explain what is going on and predict how events might pan out.
We would hope others involved in studying and writing about the
situation in Syria would endeavor to do the same.
Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University, and an adjunct fellow at the Middle East Forum. Phillip Smyth is a journalist and researcher specializing in Middle Eastern affairs. He travels regularly to the region.
No comments:
Post a Comment