Saturday, February 2, 2013

Both Syrian Oppositions in Dialogue with Assad Government

Came across this article via  Peter @ Europe's Crowned Bloodsuckers

I simply had to borrow and share it:  Syrian Opposition Figures Call  For Dialogue With Regime

Syria's NATO backed opposition figures (figureheads) call for Dialogue with the Syrian government
Why? Why now?

Dialogue with the Syrian regime will lead to a reshuffling of cards within the Syrian opposition. The political bombshell, exposed by two diametrically opposed opposition members, sets even more lenient conditions than those demanded just a short time ago to begin talks with the regime. Two concurrent offers were given in 48 hours, to open direct dialogue without international mediation. The first one expected to hold a meeting soon with the regime in Moscow or Geneva, while the other gave the regime a choice between Cairo, Tunis or Istanbul.
 The first opposition member was Haytham Manna, of the National Coordination Committee (NCC), who took part in the Hauran Citizenship Forum in Switzerland; and the second was Sheikh Moaz al-Khatib, who lit the fuse that detonated the political bombshell. The former imam of the Umayyad Mosque revealed this astonishing readiness on his personal Facebook page, where he wrote: “It has come to my attention via the media, that the Syrian regime desires to open dialogue with the opposition, and has instructed the prime minister to supervise the process, with the interior minister asking opposition leaders to return to Syria. In light of these developments, I hereby declare my willingness to take part in direct talks with representatives of the Syrian regime in Cairo, Tunis or Istanbul.”

It looks as if the internal opposition made the first offer of negotiation followed up within 48 hours by the external opposition.The internal opposition is set to meet in Moscow or Geneva.  The NATO opposition offered to meet in Cairo, Tunis or Istanbul.

Those that have been paying attention to the Syrian situation have been aware all along that there were two opposition groups. Internal and not wanting any intervention or invasion. External and begging for Syria to be invaded and innocent Syrians to be killed.

Why has the external NATO backed 'opposition' changed it's tune?

In fact, it was not by mere accident that internal and external opposition factions agreed, at the same time, to accept the regime’s call for dialogue at this critical stage. For Manna, who from the beginning wagered on finding a political solution, found in this opportunity a perfect manifestation of his position against arming the opposition, turning the conflict into a sectarian war, and relying on outside help and international intervention. For the first time ever, he was able to transcend the boundaries of the NCC and attract supporters from the Building the Syrian State Movement, the Syrian Democratic Platform, and some members of the National Coalition, who, Manna says, called him to offer support and congratulations.

 For his part, the former imam of the Umayyad Mosque saw in this opportunity a chance to avert the worst, compounded by his feeling of despair that all his allies had reneged on their promises to aid the opposition,
His allies have not reneged, the reality is the NATO rebels have largely failed in their destabilization, after nearly two years of attacking Syrians. And their is no support for their ilk amongst ordinary Syrians

 The Syrian National Council (SNC) categorically rejected the initiative, while the National Coalition chose not to officially comment on it. A communiqué by the SNC said that “these statements do not reflect the position of the SNC, and are contrary to the coalition’s bylaws and the Doha Document, under which the coalition was formed, which calls for the categorical rejection of any negotiations with the criminal regime, and the insistence that it, and all of its symbols be removed.”

Throughout the day, Khatib argued with his critics. In a second statement, he responded to the SNC’s communiqué by clarifying that “the proposal I submitted reflected my personal views, for which I bear full responsibility. The coalition is holding tomorrow (Jan. 31) a meeting of its interim political committee that will decide what its official stance will be.”

 In addition, Khatib publicly expressed his dismay concerning his allies, commenting that “there are countries that promise in vain" There are people who tell the Syrians to advance only to leave them exposed mid-battle. There are those who gave commitments to support the rebels, only to abandon them to die. There are also those who sit comfortably on their couches and tell the Syrians ‘fight, don’t negotiate.’

For as long as I have blogged on Syria it never appeared there were "countries promising in vain" or "rebels abandoned to die". The rebels have, by all appearances been well armed. Aided by Turkey, Israel and Jordan. Armed by CIA and special ops stationed in Turkey and Jordan. Israeli operatives have also been working alongside rebels. Not leaving out interested helpers in Lebanon. So there has been no shortage of support and armaments. Therefore Khatib's abandonment claim rings hollow.

Both sides of the opposition, despite their different positions and views regarding negotiations, seem to have lowered the bar of conditions for negotiations. Manna is more in tune than Khatib with the allied political factions, who added their signatures to his Geneva statement two days ago. In that statement, they asked that the first stage of dialogue be commenced without international mediation, and without specifying the identities of those who would sit at the negotiating table, be their hands stained with blood or not. Previously, all opposition factions had rejected without exception.

 It is apparent, that after 18 months of war, it is no longer useful to try and differentiate between blood-soaked and clean hands among representatives of the regime. Furthermore, the armed opposition factions, along with the armed formations of the coalition and the SNC, bear a large amount of responsibility for the killing and destruction that has taken place.

 In addition, the opposition has endorsed and backed Jabhat al-Nusra in its suicide attacks, as well as other jihadist extremist factions, because their needs of the jihadists’ military capabilities supersedes the need to criticize their actions.
 I suspect that the endorsement by the NATO opposition of the al-Nusra bombers and killers has worked against them. On the ground, amongst the Syrian population. Where NATO tried to build support, er... actually force acquiescence via terror. Instead regular Syrians fought their intruders more stridently.

If I think of more, there will be an update. Read the article entirely and share some thoughts
But, keep in mind these negotiations do not mean that NATO or Israel will give up entirely on destabilizing Syria


  1. The peoples militia is the main reason why the opposition is now open to negotiations. There are surprised that ordinary citizens men and women where willing to put their lives on the line to support the government. Secondly it is very cleat that NATO infantry controlled rats (Germany, France, UK, Israel, USA) are nothing without massive air cover to cover their inadequacies, they have always fought mainly thru the skies without this support they are not capable. Iran, Syrian, Russian, Hezbollah are masters in the infantry game. This is what i believe is the reason behind their capitulation. Those with blood on their hands should face death by public hanging. Next stop Qatar.

    1. Hi hans

      A bit late with the response, sorry

      I agree with you in that the people of Syria hate these NATO backed usurpers. And, who can blame them? France was very vocal about the NATO backed opposition getting support on the ground and that looks to me like that did not happen and isn't going to.

      Yes, it is clear the NATO rats are nothing without air support. Since they have been unable, to date, to steal enough Syrian land right out from under the Syrian people, the NATO global tyranny couldn't get a no fly zone going to support their terrorist killers.

      I guess that is why Israel had to openly enter the fray?