Ayoon Wa Azan (Only bad options In Syria)

If the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons and was indeed behind the massacre in Ghouta, then I want UN inspectors and experts examining the crime scene to present damning evidence to prove this. But for the warmongers to make this claim to justify attacking Arab and Muslim nations, then this invalidates any credibility for an attack on regime forces and bases. The comments I read in the European and American media reflect the long-held views of their proponents, rather than objective opinions on the continuing and worsening Syrian tragedy. In the Times of London, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote an editorial titled “The Hand-Wringing Has to Stop. We Must Act.” Blair advocated Western intervention in Egypt and Syria to support freedom and democracy, as he claimed. This man, together with George W. Bush, orchestrated a war based on fabricated premises in Iraq, killing one million Arabs and Muslims, and the killing is ongoing. Instead of appearing before the International War Crimes Tribunal, and then tried and imprisoned, he is still calling for another war that will most certainly not spread democracy, but only stifle what is left of freedom in this or that country. At least, anti-war groups in Britain are staging protests against military intervention. The warmongers who support Israel, especially neocons and Likudniks in the United States, were given a golden opportunity to incite an attack against yet another Arab country. The op-ed section of the Wall Street Journal is completely Likudnik, and I read an article it published titled “Target Assad” by Bret Stephens. The New York Times was more cautious in two articles written by the newspaper’s editorial board. The first was titled “The Corpses in Syria,” and supported intervention against the perpetrators of the Ghouta massacre, whether it was the regime or the rebels. The second article was titled “Responding to Syrian Atrocities,” and appeared more inclined to accuse the regime, urging the Obama administration to militarily intervene against Assad. However, I read in the same newspaper an article titled “Bomb Syria Even If It’s Illegal,” by Ian Hurd, a professor of political science at an American university. For its part, the Washington Post ran with an article titled “Syria Will Require More than Cruise Missiles,” by Eliot Cohen, another university professor who wrote clearly about the law and the risks of military intervention. But he ended up calling for a concentrated military campaign against Syria and not just missile strikes, arguing that not intervening would be intolerable. The media of the neocons and the Likudnik Jewish Americans called for the destruction of Syria without explicitly saying it, as they urged intervention. In an editorial, the Washington Times said that Bashar al-Assad deserves to be hit with missiles more than Stalin and Hitler (but not more than Benjamin Netanyahu, I would say). Meanwhile, Commentary Magazine, gave its pages to the warmonger Max Boot, who called for military action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad so that the United States does not become the object of ridicule and laughter around the world, and as a superpower that faces a challenge only to avoid responding to it. There were other views, including in the Christian Science Monitor, which represents a moderate Christian church that has ties to the Middle East, with two articles titled “America is not the world's policeman – in Syria or Iraq,” and “US strike on Syria would be illegal 'act of war'.” This is my opinion also, and I wrote in this column that those who perpetrated the massacre in Ghouta deserve to be crucified at the gates of Damascus. However, doing so would first require having conclusive evidence, and a UN Security Council resolution authorizing military action against the perpetrators. I also found what looks like my other opinion, namely, that all options in Syria are bad. Michal Rosen, in the Liduknik Weekly Standard, wrote an article titled “Our Opportunity in Syria” – probably Israel’s opportunity in Syria rather than the United States’ – and wrote that the options range between the bad and the worse. For his part, Edward Luttwak in the New York Times, wrote an article titled, “In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins.” If I had a third opinion, it would be that I hope that the Syrian people win; I don’t know how, because the tragedy is ongoing, and there is little reason to be optimistic. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of Arab Today.