30 Years Later, The Hama Massacre Revisited

Thirty years ago, Hafez al-Assad cracked down against the Muslim Brotherhood that had risen up to oppose Assad's dictatorship. Instead of compromise, Assad launched a full-scale military operation that all but razed the city of Hama. At least 10,000 people were killed, and some estimates put the figure as high as 25,000 or more.

That episode was recounted by Thomas Friedman in his book From Beirut to Jerusalem in the chapter called "The Hama Rules".

The rule basically goes like this: Rule by fear — strike fear in the heart of your people by letting them know that you play by no rules at all, so they won’t ever, ever, ever think about rebelling against you.

Violent and brutal crackdowns struck fear in those who might contemplate rising up to topple a regime. It worked in Syria for more than 30 years.

This past year, Friedman noted that the Hama Rules worked, until they didn't during the Arab Spring uprising against the totalitarian regimes across the Middle East and North Africa. However, Syria's Bashar al-Assad is continuing to use the rule to great effect despite the greater role of the Internet and social media to join together people opposed to the regime and to publicize the atrocities committed by the regime. Yet, Assad remains in power and continues murdering those opposed to the regime.

Syrians attempted to mark the anniversary by spraying and pouring red dye and paint on the streets to indicate all the blood shed by the Assad clan over the decades. Assad's loyalists came through with fire hoses to wash away the paint, but they can't wash away the death and misery that the Assads have imposed on the Syrian people and those who dare oppose the regime.

yrian security forces fanned out in Hama on Thursday as protesters splashed red paint symbolizing blood in the streets to mark the 30th anniversary of a notorious massacre carried out by President Bashar Assad's father and predecessor.

The Hama massacre of 1982, which leveled entire neighborhoods and killed thousands of people, has become a rallying cry for the Syrian uprising that began nearly 11 months ago in the hopes of ending four decades of the Assad family rule.

Hundreds of troops and security forces were in Hama on Thursday, closing off public squares and setting up checkpoints.

"There is a checkpoint every 100 meters," said Ahmed Jimejmi, a Hama resident.

Activists painted two streets in Hama red to symbolize blood, and threw red dye in the waters of Hama's famous and ancient water wheels.

Graffiti on the walls read: "Hafez died, and Hama didn't. Bashar will die, and Hama won't."

The death toll in the current uprising continues climbing and is closing in on at least 6,000 dead (the overwhelming majority civilians) though no one knows the true death toll. Assad's regime claims that over 2,000 killed are his security forces, though that could also be a combination of his loyalists and those defecting from his regime that the loyalists have killed.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights continues reporting on the situation inside the country, but they too are limited by what they can report.


Meanwhile the fighting continues to become more sectarian as Assad's Alawite sect is coming under increasing fire from rebel opposition groups that are fighting against the regime. The Alawites are a minority among Syrians, and have benefited from the Assad regimes such that there is likely to be lingering animosity that will carry on long after Assad is gone.

This video purportedly shows rebel groups firing on loyalists in Homs:


The fighting continues across the country, but I don't think it has gotten to the point where Assad would ever entertain exile. The National Post seems to think that the time is approaching where Assad would consider this (two countries in the Middle East are apparently prepared to give him sanctuary). Rebel groups may have held on to territory near the capital of Damascus for a short period, but the loyalists pushed them back. Had the rebels held on to the territory and made inroads inside Damascus proper, Assad may have responded with an even more violent crackdown but I don't see exile in his future.

Where Tom Friedman Continues Believing Israel Has A Partner In Peace

Here's a memo to Tom Friedman about the chances for an Arab-Israeli peace deal (and particularly a Palestinian-Israel deal). No deal can be had when the Palestinians refuse to undertake their most essential obligation under Oslo - agreeing to a 2-state solution. Friedman believes that the problem isn't Hamas and Fatah, but rather Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu's refusal to make concessions.

That puts the cart before the horse. Why exactly would any Israeli leader make still more concessions when the Palestinians have refused to carry out their stated obligations under Oslo?

When Hamas, which has reconciled with Fatah and rejoined the PA, refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and doesn't include Israel on a map other than to use as targeting data for its terror plots, Israel lacks a partner in peace.

Israel can and has shown an uncommon willingness to swap land for peace, but the Gaza disengagement should have disabused the world of the notion that land for peace will work when one party to the deal doesn't accept Israel's existence. Instead of using Gaza to build a productive society, the Palestinian leadership turned the region into an armed camp for a terror war against Israel using fellow Palestinians as human shields. Palestinian propaganda continues touting those killed in these attacks as martyrs for the cause of liberating all of Israel from Israeli control.

That is not the framework for peace, and Netenyahu and other Israeli leaders would not be carrying out their sworn obligation to defend Israel from its enemies if it granted still more concessions to Palestinians when Palestinian obligations go unfulfilled.

Housing can be swapped - and has been in the past - it was, and never has been, the real stumbling block to peace no matter how much the left in Israel and the pro-Palestinians try to spin it. The history of Israel's land swaps disprove that time and time again (Camp David, Gaza disengagement).

Palestinians simply can't accept a Jewish state of Israel alongside a Palestinian state - regardless of what borders are delineated on a map. The border incursions weren't about Israel capturing the West Bank, Golan and Gaza in 1967, but called for liberating all of Israel for the Palestinians; a tacit call for Israel's destruction.

These are the partners in peace that Friedman and others like him think Israel should be making still more concessions to in the hopes that the Palestinians will somehow moderate.

Frankly, the recent history has shown that whenever Israel has made concessions, the result has been to portray Israel as weak and terror groups, including Hamas (still part of the PA) has unleashed waves of terror. Israel makes concessions and gets terror as a consequence. Israel doesn't make concessions, and it still gets threats of terror. With that calculus, there's no reason to make further concessions. The onus should be on the Palestinians to show that they are truly committed to a 2-state solution.

To that end, that means a full repeal of the Hamas charter and PLO/PA charter provisions calling for Israel's destruction. Yet, we all know that will never happen since Hamas' raison d'etre is to seek Israel's destruction as a religious and political goal. Hamas considers Israel's very existence as an abomination against Israel, and phrases its call to jihad as a duty for all Muslims. This isn't a partner in peace, but the call by a terror group to commit genocide should it have the means at its disposal.

Cap and Trade Cognitive Dissonance 101

Paging Tom Friedman.

There is much in the House cap-and-trade energy bill that just passed that I absolutely hate. It is too weak in key areas and way too complicated in others. A simple, straightforward carbon tax would have made much more sense than this Rube Goldberg contraption. It is pathetic that we couldn’t do better. It is appalling that so much had to be given away to polluters. It stinks. It’s a mess. I detest it.

Now let’s get it passed in the Senate and make it law.

Why? Because, for all its flaws, this bill is the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions. Rejecting this bill would have been read in the world as America voting against the reality and urgency of climate change and would have undermined clean energy initiatives everywhere.

So, just because it's the first bill to deal with a problem that might not actually be a problem we have to pass it?

Climate change is a natural part of the global climate since the Earth was created all those eons ago. There were warm periods. There were cold periods. Then, there's the last few hundred years or so when people have been able to take direct measurements of temperature, and the last few decades where satellites can provide global temperature measurements. All of sudden, based on this limited data sample we're told to worry about global warming.

Okay.

We have to stop polluting. I want to see reduced pollution, but the efforts to strangle US business and industry isn't going to affect the global climate, and it surely isn't going to get China or India to suddenly realize that they too have to shut down their polluting industries.

China is the largest emitter of pollution in the world. The air in China is so think you can see it and taste it. Just look at all those photos of Beijing during the Olympics. It was dirty and dingy, despite the government's best efforts to shut tens of thousands of factories and power plants all over China to put the best face on the Chinese Olympic effort. It failed badly, because as soon as the games were over, the government allowed those business to resume their pollution.

Cap and trade is a disastrous policy as all too many countries are already seeing.

If Friedman is so concerned about pollution and cap and trade, how about imploring the New York Times to stop publishing the paper version of its news? After all, think of the trees that could be saved and the forests that could capture all the CO2 that is being emitted.

In fact, Friedman could also shut down his computer and lessen the strain on the power grid, a portion of which requires carbon emissions. He should also give up his trips overseas since the flights release plenty of COx. He should also give up the car.

Instead, he excoriates Republicans, President Obama, and all Americans for why this bill is so poor. Sorry, but that doesn't fly either.

This bill is so awful because it will never do what its authors intend. It will not reduce emissions, will create a new market that can be manipulated in a fashion akin to Enron without suitable regulatory oversight to prevent such manipulation, and will cause shortages of energy all while causing prices of all manner of goods and services to increase as the costs are passed on to consumers.