Western Media’s Tactical War Propaganda in Support of Al-Qaeda and Israeli Operations inside Syria

By Abir A Chaaban

Western media’s initial analysis of conflict in Syria was geared at propagating a sectarian Sunni majority uprising against an Alawite minority. Thomas Friedman in an article titled “Mideast's Three Governing Options” argued “in Syria, under the Assad family's iron fist, the Alawite minority came to rule over a Sunni majority.” An article published in the Telegraph by Ruth Sherlock described villages seized by militants as inhabited by minority groups in what would seem as a demographic segregation based on sectarian minorities and sectarian majorities inside Syria, as she imagined “Sunni rebels seized control of villages populated by religious minority groups in Syria's Hama province, amid fears that the civil war is turning into a sectarian conflict”.

Western media coverage of the Syrian conflict does not distinguish between Wahabi Salaf militancy and the four traditional schools of the Sunni Orthodoxy, the Shafe’i, Hanafi, Hanbali and Maliki, underplaying the fact that the Wahabi Salaf does not belong to any of the traditional Sunnis. In fact, the Wahabi militancy carried out several attacks on Sunni religious clergy by targeted assassinations in Damascus, the most recent of which was the assassination of Sunni scholar Al Bouti.

Western media discourse of the "sectarian conflict" underplays that the Syrian executive leadership is composed of an Alawite Shi’a President, a Sunni Prime Minister, two deputy Prime Ministers one is a Sunni Muslim and one is a Greek Orthodox Christian, and a Sunni Minister of Defense. The military operations of the Syrian Army are commanded by a Sunni. This government representation does not reflect that the government is dominated by an Alawite Shi’a minority.

The Genesis of the Syrian Conflict

The Syrian conflict started with peaceful demonstrations demanding a change from the one party regime to a pluralist system of government, the end of the emergency rule, and the release of political prisoners.Regardless to the Syrian government meeting these demands a militancy emerged instead of negotiations. The Syrian Revolutionary Front, an organization composed of sub-groups of Wahabi and radical –Salaf, are the major player in the conflict. They are also the sectarian player. The most spectacular party of the Syrian Revolutionary Front is Al-Nusra Front, a militant group considered as a terrorist organization by the United States. The Revolutionary Front demands are associated with Western, Saudi, Israeli and Qatari tactical dissemination war propaganda that magnifies the battle in sectarian terms. The media underplays the fact that the Syrian Army is composed of a Sunni majority and is commanded by a Sunni. Western media propagates the sectarian discourse of the Wahhabi and radical Salaf militancy, making the public believe that the Wahhabi-Salaf discourse is the discourse of the Sunni majority. In fact, the Sunni Syrian Army is at war with the Wahhabi-Salaf insurgency. Large numbers of Wahhabi-Salaf militants arrive from Australia, Chechnya, the UK and the United States amongst other western countries.  

The war aims of the militancy, according to local analysis of the conflict are the destruction of Syria’s military power, and not the reformation of government. This position is further confirmed by the Western imposed National Coalition of Opposition and Revolutionary Forces, a blanket opposition of Syrians in exile supported by the Friends of Syria and the Arab League. The National Coalition rejects any attempts of negotiation with the Syrian government opting instead for a militarized "uprising." The Muslim Brotherhood is the most powerful player in the Coalition. The National Coalition is the main recipient of funding from the United States, Qatar and the Friends of Syria. The Peaceful opposition which is composed of the National Coordination Committee is secular. It promotes negotiations and rejects militarization, Western, and Arab intervention. The National Coordination Committee refused to join the Western backed National Coalition depriving it of domestic legitimacy.

The discourse of the regional war started to surface in Western media following the Syrian army's significant military gains in Al-Qusayr and the arrival of Hezbollah as a major player in the war against the Wahhabi-Salaf Western supported and Arab financed militancy. Al-Qaeda is the major player in the militancy.

The Media as Tactical Support of Israeli War aims in Syria. 

The first actual military action taken against Syria by a foreign state was initiated by Israel. Israel attacked Syrian military posts inside Syria on May 3^rd and 4^th(for the second time during the conflict). Israel's attack early May was justified under the pretext that the attacks were aimed at "preventing the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah". Israel's declared target of the attack was a missile shipment heading to Hezbollah. Israel claimed that the missile shipment would have changed the balance of powers on the ground. According to the Syrian government, Israel, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the major providers for ammunition and logistical support of the militancy inside Syria. In an interview with President Bashar Al-Assad on Argentinean newspaper Clarín reported on the Guardian, on May 18, 2013, Assad stated that militants shelled the Syrian radar facility that would have detected the Israeli warplanes a day prior to the attack. 

The situation as it stands today, with the popular local support for Assad, his advancement on the ground against militant organizations, and his containment of the conflict to the borders of Turkey and North Lebanon , does not serve Israel's interest. Israel will not achieve its objective of war by propagating a sectarian conflict that may weaken the government, even with its powerful control of the media and war propaganda.

On May 19, 2013 the Syrian government declared its first operational victory in Al-AQussayr. At this point, Western media changed direction of its war propaganda. Western media started underplaying the sectarian conflict inside Syria and highlighting the involvement of Hezbollah in the Syrian conflict. Media coverage on the Canadian National Post, the American Washington Post, the Israeli Jerusalem Post and Debka tell the story of Hezbollah and the Syrian Army crushing “rebels.” When, in fact, Al-Nusra and radical terrorist organizations are the major militancy battling the Syrian Army in Al-Qussayr. This shift in direction of war propaganda is geared at two directions. The first is to legitimize another Israeli attack inside Syria in the minds of these states publics. Since, Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization in Canada, the United States and Israel. An attack on Hezbollah may not be critically protested by publics of these states, when an attack on the sovereign state of Syria may be rejected by public opinion of the United States and Canada. 

The same media tactic as was previously utilized in support of Israel’s attack on Lebanon in 2006. The media discourse in 2006 underplayed that Israel attacked a sovereignty state, and overemphasized the target of the attacks being Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is recognized as a militant resistance against Israel in Lebanon, the Middle East except Qatar, and Europe except the Netherlands and the UK.Western media discourse, following the military gains of Hezbollah and the Syrian Army in Al-Qussayr started propagating the involvement of a terrorists organization Hezbollah, and not Al-Qaeda, to legitimize a foreign offensive inside Syria. 

The second direction of western media war propaganda is to legitimize Western military support of Al-Qaeda militancy inside Syria under the label the "rebels." By changing the identity of the "rebels" from the Sunni majority the game on the ground changes. In this case the "rebels" are not magnified as the Sunni majority trying to overthrow the Alawite minority. The "rebels" are the armed opposition fighting the enemies of America, Hezbollah and the Syrian government under the leadership of Assad. This is taking that after two years of conflict it is becoming common knowledge that majority of the Syrian Army are Sunnis. The new direction of war propaganda is then geared to support the United States shift in direction towards the type of support the US will grant Al-Qaeda mercenaries and their multiple identities. Following the Conference of the eleven Friends of Syria in Amman, the discourse of the eleven Friends of Syria started targeting Iran and Hezbollah's involvement in Al-Qussayr. Consequently, the battle of Al-Qussayr is propagated by the media as being the major offensive by the Syrian government and Hezbollah against the legitimate "rebels". Factually and legally, under international law standards, Syria a sovereign state could request Hezbollah to support its military operations against Al-Qaeda foreign militant mercenaries inside Syria, when the Friends of the militancy of Syria cannot legally support the "rebels" either financially or militarily.

Hezbollah's participation inside Al-Qussayr is indeed utilized by the eleven Friends to legitimize the illegal armament of Al-Qaeda militant operations inside Syria against the Sunni Syrian Army and the Shiite Hezbollah. The Washington Post media reports on Al-Qussayr makes American public believe that Hezbollah and the Syrian Army are fighting Syrian legitimate "rebels" and not Western militancy of foreign Al-Qaeda mercenaries. This is not the terrorists of Al-Qaeda. These are the "rebels"  and freedom fighters of Al-Qaeda. As a matter of fact, Hezbollah was not involved in any terrorist activities in a single Western state. Conversely, Al-Qaeda has a historic record of carrying out terrorist activities against civilians in Western States territories. Hezbollah's main target of operations is Israel and the liberation of territories occupied by Israel in the Levant. Hezbollah operates from within its national state Lebanon, and within its regional boundaries. Syria could legally and legitimately request the support of Hezbollah and Iran to support its military operations against the United States and Arab supported militancy of Al-Qaeda

Lebanon, Syria and Israel Politics: The Genesis of the Syrian Conflict after the Arriv...

Lebanon, Syria and Israel Politics: The Genesis of the Syrian Conflict after the Arriv...: Updated May 19, 2013 The Syrian conflict started with demonstrations demanding a change of the one party regime to a pluralist system ...

The Genesis of the Syrian Conflict after the Arrival of Israel as a Public Player

Updated May 19, 2013

By Abir A Chaaban
 
The Syrian conflict started with demonstrations demanding a change from the one party regime to a pluralist system of government, the end of the emergency rule, and the release of political prisoners. The Syrian government met the demands, a new Constitution was promulgated. The Constitution omitted the old  Constitution's reference to the Ba’ath party as the "leader of the nation and society". It was approved in a referendum on 26 February, 2012. The new Syrian Constitution declares the new system of government in Syria as a republican system. Sovereignty is an attribute of the people, and no individual or group may claim sovereignty (article 2.). The Constitution established a pluralist system of parliamentary democracy. It prohibits the formation of political parties based on religion, sect, and national origin (article 8.4). It declares Islam as the State law and a source of legislation into the laws of the state (article 3).

Regardless, militancy emerged instead of negotiations. The Syrian Revolutionary Front, an organization composed of sub-groups of Wahhabi and radical –Salaf, are the major player in the conflict. They are also the sectarian player. The most spectacular party of the Syrian Revolutionary Front is Al-Nusra , a militant group considered as a terrorist organization by the United States. The Constitution of the Syrian Revolutionary Front aims at enforcing several demands that are in conflict with the declared secular republican system of government constituted in February 2012. The first demand of the Revolutionary Front aims at the constitution of a democracy ruled by the religious ideology of the Wahhabi-Salaf, claiming representation of the Sunni majority. This is in opposition to the political majority determined by the political party disregarding religion and voted in the 2012 referendum. The second demand aims at prohibiting the Ba’ath party from participating in government, in disagreement with the new constitution allowing the Ba’ath party to participate with other political parties in a pluralist parliament. The third demand aims at constituting an Islamic State founded of Shari’a.  Wahhabi and radical Salafism is less than onepercent of the Syrian Sunnis, making the militancy and its demands a minority aiming to usurp power violently. 

The Revolutionary Front demands are associated with Western, Saudi, Israeli and Qatari tactical dissemination war propaganda that magnifies the battle in sectarian terms. In fact, the sectarian discourse of mobilization on the ground does not govern the ideologies of both factions in the conflict. The sectarian discourse is the discourse of the Wahhabi and radical Salaf militancy. This is the discourse that is propagated by Western media as the discourse of the Sunni majority. In fact, the media discourse of the "sectarian conflict" underplays that the Syrian executive leadership is composed of an Alawite Shī’a President, a Sunni Prime Minister, two deputy Prime Ministers one is a Sunni Muslim and one is a Greek Orthodox Christian, and a Sunni Minister of Defense. The military operations of the Syrian Army are commanded by a Sunni.The government's representation does not reflect that the government is dominated by an Alawite Shī’a minority.

At the local level, in Syria and Lebanon, the war is reported in regional terms, with Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel being major players supporting and arming the militancy.Qatar is the major financier of the supply of militants, weapons and ammunition . The war aims of the militancy, according to local analysis, is the destruction of the  military power of Syria, and not the reformation of government. This is clearly stated by the Western instituted National Coalition of Opposition and Revolutionary Forces, a blanket opposition in exile that rejects negotiation with the government, opting instead for a militarized "uprising."

Last week, after the Syrian army's significant military gains in Al-Qussayr, Israel attacked Syrian military posts inside Syria under the pretext that the attacks were aimed at "preventing the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah". Israel's declared target of the attack was a missile shipment heading to Hezbollah. Israel claimed that the missile shipment would have changed the balance of powers on the ground. The Syrian government alleges that Israel and Arab and Western states are the major providers for military and logistical support for the militants. In an interview with President Bashar Al-Assad on Argentinean newspaper Clarín and reported on the Guardian, on May 18, 2013, Assad stated that militants shelled the Syrian radar facility that would have detected the Israeli warplanes a day prior to the attack.

The situation as it stands today, with the popular support for Assad, his advancement on the ground against militant organizations, and his containment of  the conflict to the borders of Turkey and North Lebanon , does not serve Israel's interest. Israel will not achieve its objective of war by instigating a sectarian conflict that may weaken the government, even with its powerful control of the media and war propaganda. This is so, since the majority of the Sunnis support the secular government of Assad. Israel's operations inside Syria then aimed at achieving  what the radical militancy in Syria is failing to achieve, primarily, weaken Syria's military. Thus, Israel illegally attacked a sovereign state without a declaration of war. Nevertheless, Israel is the weaker player in this conflict. Israel, while possessing advanced weapons, it does not have the manpower to fight a war with Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

Following the Israeli attacks, the Golan is declared as a war front by the Syrian government and Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah. Israel, as usual, has put itself in an unfavorable situation regionally, and domestically within Syria.The Israeli attack changed the facts on the ground, at least, in two directions. First it has strengthened the Sunni support for the Syrian government, including this of the peaceful opposition of the National Coordination Committee, and weakened main stream Sunni support of the Wahhabi-Salaf insurgency. The National Coordination Committee, started vocally advocating the peaceful solution in the face of the Israeli threat. Second, the Israeli attacks created doubt in the public eyes about the actual motives of the militancy inside Syria, and the rationale of Western support of the militants, bringing credibility to Assad's discourse claiming that this war is a regional war aiming to destroy Syria.

“The Canadian Muslim Congress” Canada’s Worst Enemy and its Hidden Agenda

By Abir A Chaaban

The National Post published an article titled Survey shows Muslim population is fastest growing religion in Canada. The article quotes what is called the “the Canadian Muslim Congress". A Muslim organization organized by Pakistani Muslims claiming representation of all Muslim communities of Canada that do not wish to be represented by another Muslim organization.The Canadian Muslim Congress is an organization that aims at domination and control. It aims at the construction of a religious identity of Muslims who are secular which is an oxymoronic conceptual paradox. The Congress claims to speak of behalf of secular Canadians of Muslim origin without being legitimately granted such delegation by any secular Canadian citizen . It thus, alienates Canadian citizens and strips them of their individuality.

Going to the comments section of the National Post article, the battle was between the Jews and any secular Canadian from an Arab or Muslim origin. The attack was against this that argued that this Congress is a representative of the Pakistani group that runs it. At the comments sections, I was attacked of being a terrorist. I was called names. I was also asked to leave Canada by the Jewish individuals that used foul language and aggressive methods to intimidate any individual that argued against the Wahabi-Salaf, and Pakistani practice of Islam, or forwarded the notion that Wahabi-Salaf radical sect or the Pakistani version of Sunnis does not represent all sectarian Muslim groups in Canada.It is important to note that the Jews have a similar organization in Canada called “the Jewish Congress".

The Canadian Muslim Congress and the Jewish Congress are ideological organizations with a hidden agenda. Their aim is to construct a sub-identity of the Canadian citizen. Such identity is established based on racial birth into a specific religion. These organizations aim at taking control of the secular, public and individual citizen, and undermine the value of the Canadian citizenship. They aim at creating sectarian divisions within Canada based on organizing religious ideologies that are outwardly secular, and implicitly violent. The question is where is the media and government taking the Canadian citizen that cherishes her freedom and autonomy, and why have Pakistani Muslims become the representative of secular Middle Eastern citizens in Canada.


I came to Canada because it promised the dream of freedom, autonomy, individuality, self expression and opportunity. I was received with anger and hostility. I was accused of being the perpetrator of a crime I did not carry-out. I was persecuted for a wrong I did not commit. I was denied the freedom that I once had. I was forced to live in fear. I became a group not an individual. I was denied my freedom to believe or not believe. I was framed, colored and converted to a religion I did not even know before I came to Canada. I was painted to be someone I was not and I never recognized. I became lost when I knew who I was.

In Canada, I learned that I came to a culture that must construct multiple identities and is incapable of being simply Canadian. This was not any different from Lebanon a country that is incapable of constructing a Lebanese identity and strives on constructing sectarian antagonism. I came to a culture that does not believe in individuals, but in groups. This was no different from Lebanon's sectarian grouping. I came to a culture that oppresses you by categorizing you based on religion, even if you do not have a religion. In Canada they call it multi -cultural communities. In Lebanon they call it multi-sectarian communities. I see it as a culture of multi-oppressive communities. A culture whose survival depends on constructing religious antagonist identities of superiors and inferiors based on religion and ideology.

I did not come to Canada to emerge into an Arab Canadian or to a Muslim Canadian. I came to Canada to be an autonomous individual Canadian citizen. I came to Canada to be an individual and not to join yet another sectarian or cultural group. I was neither an Arab nor a Muslim before I came to Canada. I am now forced to become and identify with communities that I never knew, and I do not wish to know. If I wanted to become an Arab Canadian I would have moved to Arabia. If I wanted to be a Muslim Canadian I would have chosen to live in a Muslim State. I came to Canada from a secular state and I cherished my secularism back there. Why should Canada force me into becoming a religion or a religious group that is oppressed when I was originally free. I came to Canada escaping a civil war and not escaping oppression. I hoped to live in a peaceful state not a state that promotes the very causes of the civil war I escaped.

Canada must know that the categorization of groups based on religion, race and origin are the core causes of civil conflict. Is this where Canada wishes to go?