Diana Moukalled: Here’s the kicker: Hungarian journalist exposes Arab media hypocrisy/Mohamed Chebarro: Is Russia fighting for the last of Assad’s Syria?

Is Russia fighting for the last of Assad’s Syria?
Mohamed Chebarro/Al Arabiya/September 15/15
Russia’s renewed deployment of both men and advanced hardware in Syria is, I believe, another indicator that the Assad regime is losing hope of forming an Alawite state, or what has been referred to as a “mini Syria”. The Russian deployment of soldiers, or ‘advisers’, and modern equipment is explained by Moscow as a means to prop up the global fight against ISIS in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. But the reality is that the Russians are looking to prop up what is left of President Bashar al-Assad’s “useful Syria” – or the “mini” Alawite coastal state – which is seen as the endgame for Damascus should it fail to regain all of Syria.The Russian move is also tacitly intended to deny Tehran a monopoly in any future settlement of the Syrian crisis.

Latakia is key
The Latakia area seems to be teetering as opposition forces group and edge closer, travelling through the al-Ghab valley. For the option of a “mini Syria” state to remain viable, then the coastal areas need to remain intact. Regime troops aided by local Alawite militias trained by the Iranians, and supported by Iraqi, Afghani and Lebanese militias and recruits, look destined to fail in defending Assad’s heartland of Latakia in the long run.But for the option of a “mini Syria” state to remain viable, then the coastal areas need to remain intact. And Russia under President Vladimir Putin is expert at keeping loyal enclaves protected, as we saw in the Crimea region, and later in Eastern Ukraine. The Kremlin’s renewed effort in Syria also acts as a counterbalance to an active Iranian agenda, which is seen as a policy to extend its foothold in the Mediterranean through propping up a weak Syria without a strong central army.

Washington, though still firm in its policy of fighting ISIS being its sole priority in the Middle East, sees no issue in allowing Moscow space to promote what it has long called for. For Russia, the settlement in Syria should be based on Geneva-1 – and Moscow-1, two and three. It is a settlement based on a transition government made up of mild opponents of the regime, with President Assad as a symbolic president. This is a formula rejected by a least half the Syrian public and most Arab countries, as well as Turkey. For those see Assad and his allies in Tehran and Moscow as part of the problem – not the solution.

Since the initially peaceful uprising against Assad in March 2011, Russia’s Putin saw the events as a fight against terror, rather than a rebellion against Assad’s dynastic dictatorship. After nearly five years more than 300,000 Syrians have been killed; there are one million injured, imprisoned or missing; and in excess of ten million displaced. It is a three-way war, with the regime and its allies fighting foreign-induced terror, the opposition groups fighting for a united Syria without Assad, and ISIS fighting against the rest.

Yet it is evident that the solution proposed by Putin and his foreign minister Sergey Lavrov has not changed. Moscow thinks that Syrians must decide for themselves what government they want – albeit one under Assad’s symbolic rule – and disregards the constant death, destruction and displacement of surviving citizens.

Russia’s flawed vision for Syria’s future
If president Putin’s vision for ending the conflict is facilitated by a neutral Obama administration, and a Europe frightened of further waves of refugees arriving at its shores, then it will not be an exaggeration to suggest that we might witness the following in the months to come. President Putin will send in more troops and marines – as well as fighter jets. Thousands of Iranian advisors and troops – in addition to 5000-plus Hezbollah fighters already there, as well as more Iraqi and Afghani militia – will surely be a force to stabilize ‘useful Syria’.This cocktail of troops and militias – without, of course, the half of the Syrian population that have been displaced – will likely hold the ground until a peace conference is held under the banner of the ‘global fight against terror’.

Such is the logical conclusion of the highly flawed peace plan envisaged by Moscow, that – who knows! – maybe ISIS foreign fighters could swap hats and play the role of international monitors. This phoney plan, championed by Moscow and an internationally rehabilitated Tehran, would proclaim to find a solution for the Syrian crisis. This will result in a transitory government, and a date set for parliamentary elections that will allow the Syrians to decide democratically what they want and how they wish to govern their fractured nation. The Iranian troops or advisors, Moscow’s marines, and the militias already present in Syria will double-up with forces led by U.N. special envoy Staffan De Mistura, to protect a free and fair election once it is finally called for by Moscow, Tehran – and Washington, maybe. Such is the logical conclusion of this highly flawed peace plan envisaged by Moscow, that – who knows! – maybe ISIS foreign fighters could swap hats under this Russian deal, and play the role of international monitors.

Here’s the kicker: Hungarian journalist exposes Arab media hypocrisy
Diana Moukalled/Al Arabiya/September 15/15

If a journalist’s job is, supposedly, to expose the suffering of others, but instead they kick a child as the entire world watches, it’s obvious that they should pay the price. Hungarian camerawoman Petra László lost her job, future and credibility after her colleagues’ cameras documented the moment she meanly kicked a girl and a father carrying his son, as they and other Syrian refugees fled police at the border between Hungary and Serbia.

Amid all the condemnation of László, who later apologized, images of the incident became some sort of visible summary of all the hate and racism of European right-wing parties and their objection to the refugees. But wait a minute. We, particularly Arabs, who are angry at this woman must take a deep breath – and then take a look at ourselves. Let us think about what Arab journalists are committing against refugees, and against the many weak minorities in our societies, in the name of a commitment to a cause. Yes, we are right to be angry of László’s behavior. But let’s be a little humble before we demonize her and the entire West, which at this moment seems to be the only refuge for those escaping death in Syria. Embodying the right wing. Why did the Hungarian camerawoman anger us? It’s because she violated humanitarian and journalistic principles. However, there is another face to what László did. She embodied the type of journalist who covers events as if they were part of the struggle involved, rather than an objective observer. And it is clear she is committed to the right-wing, with its fear and rejection of refugees.

Some among us think that objective journalism – which is performed via observing – is no more, and that we’ve now entered the era of journalism that’s loyal to either side of a struggle. Isn’t this what László did? Let’s look at this in the Arab countries. Let’s review what other Arab journalists did at the same time that this Hungarian woman committed that horrible act against fleeing Syrian refugees. An article by one Arab author actually criticized the Syrian refugees, describing them in a manner that was harsher and more racist than the Hungarian camerawoman’s act. The author described the millions of Syrian refugees fleeing to Europe as people Syria doesn’t need.

Hypocrisy
Many other Arab journalists openly declare their bias to a certain party. And that then endorses those who are responsible for the death of thousands. You could argue that, while journalists may be biased towards a particular cause, they have not reached the level of kicking a child or a father and his son. But as a matter of fact, they’ve done worse than that. They committed sins that are worse than what the Hungarian camerawoman did. They have supported dictator regimes. They supported imprisonment, the execution of activists, and they overlooked torture. They supported wars that falsely claimed they were aimed at restoring sovereignty.

They supported the persecution of minorities. There is much hypocrisy in how the media deals with the Syrian refugee crisis. Some condemn what the Hungarian camerawoman did, yet incite others against Syrian refugees in their own countries, and calling for their expulsion. The list of violations against the refugees goes on and on. So let the West hold László accountable. And let us think about what Arab journalists are committing against refugees, and against the many weak minorities in our societies, in the name of their commitment to a cause. It’s true that what László did brought shame to journalism. But she only did what some have been committing in the name of journalism for years. And that has serious consequences far worse than that despicable kick.