First, I wish to congratulate Max for his job at the Nation. I really like Max and respect him and trust him on Arab-Israeli issues, and have liked his work but he said that he left Al-Akhbar because he did not like its biases on Syria (and they exist--those biases). So I expected to find Max at a place that has less biases than Al-Akhbar but alas he wound up at the Nation? The Nation has less biases on Israel and Syria and the Middle East than Al-Akhbar? Be that as it may. Let me move on. So he has an article from Az-Za`tari camp: "I am staunchly against US strikes, mainly because I believe they could exacerbate an already horrific situation without altering the political reality in any meaningful way. The Obama administration has made clear that its “unbelievably small” strikes would not be not aimed at toppling Assad but only, as Obama said, to send a “shot across the bow.” However, I believe that the refugees trapped in Zaatari deserve to be heard." OK, Max. What are you saying here? Do you support the US bombing or not? Or are you like John Kerry on the US war in Iraq in 2003 or Clinton on the Iraq war in 1990, when they both said that they were for the war but also for the opposition? And what do you mean that they should be heard? When you opposed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, did you also call for the voices of Iraqis who supported the invasion to be heard? And what does that mean? Are you implying that the pro-war voices were NOT heard in the US? Also, do you know that Free Syrian Army runs that camp and controls it (violently) and no views are allowed that don't conform with the views of the Fee Syrian Army and the sponsoring Jordanian regime? So do you now always take this position? That when we oppose a war we should call on the state that is threatening war to "hear" the views of those who want war? Also, Max: do you notice that all the Syrians who want their country to be bombed live outside of Syria? They want their country to be bombed while they are not inside their country. But I asked an NGO person who knows the camp well to comment and she/he wrote me: "The majority of the Syrians in Zaatari support the FSA, but you are right, it
would be hard for those who do not support the FSA to express their views. Many
in Zaatari talk about regime infiltrators among them further intimidating those
with opposing views to the FSA's. FSA does not run the camp but they are
powerful. The article criticizes "self-appointed street leaders" in this line:
"she
heaped curses on the self-appointed “street leaders” who took the caravans
supplied by UNHCR and sold them back to residents for 200 dinars (around
$280)".
Well those are often FSA people, or gangs supported by the FSA.
They express more freely views against the Jordanian regime and Jordanian
people. For example you would hear them complain about their living conditions
and the fact that Jordanians put them in camps, something they never did when
they received Lebanese and Iraqi refugees."
