These are excerpts from a long email I wrote in an academic email group in response to one of my colleague's criticism of Seymour Hersh's recent article on Syria.
"Let me say the following: the US, and Western media, in general have been publishing basically one point of view on Syria. I can’t think of one article in the US press in the last 3 years which questioned the premise of a Syrian “revolution”—that term has now become tragically comical. Not one article. Of course, I am not talking even about publishing articles representing the views of the Syrian regime, as there are at least three points of view on Syria but only one view is permitted. Even perspectives that are opposed to the Syrian regime and to the Syrian armed opposition (and its exile branches) are not welcome. Seymour Hersh was one of the most celebrated and respected US investigative journalists—until his articles contradicted the orientations of US foreign policy. Only then, Hersh became dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist”. (Having said that, I have no way of deciding whether the contents of his article are true or not as I am not a technical military expert and his article—not unlike articles that support the Syrian “revolution”—is based on anonymous sources. But I can certainly say that David Ignatius of the Washington Post (who has far less of a stellar journalistic record than Hersh) utilizes anonymous sources far more than Hersh, and the former was lauding Gen. Engineer Dr. Salim Idriss as the savior of Syria to the very day when he was replaced by the Saudi regime.
Now...describes Hersh’s article (and I am not talking about this article here nor will I discuss it in detail), as “shameful conspiracy theory”. Now this is polemical language, and I don’t know what he means by “shameful conspiracy theory.” Does he mean that all conspiracy theories are shameful, or only those conspiracy theories that contradict the narrative of a Syrian “revolution”? And what does shameful mean? This is a word that derives either from religious morality or from the morality of ancient societies. But let us leave that aside. If...is lamenting what he describes as a “conspiracy theory” then he is dead wrong. I don’t know how anyone can be a Middle East expert who has reviewed the modern history of the region and who has read the declassified documents pertaining to Western policies in the Middle East can dismiss conspiracy theory out of hand. When the US has “faked” a revolution against Mosaddeq in Iran in 1953, and when the Zionists have controlled through cash payments Middle East monarchs, and when the US faked evidence of WMDs in Iraq to justify an invasion and an occupation, and when the political map of the Middle East was created through a secret agreement in 1916, it would be unreasonable and irrational to dismiss conspiracy theory out of hand in Middle East analysis. It is more wise than to rule out conspiracy theories but one has to weigh the evidence carefully on a case-by-case basis.
And as to the facts about Syria, the leak of a taped meeting between high Turkish officials about Syria, in which a fake attack by Syria is proposed to justify Turkish military action in Syria, was never questioned and its veracity has been basically verified. So what was shameful about that conspiracy theory or other conspiracy theories? That Western governments lie and cheat and fabricate to justify their military action? That the US and its Saudi ally invoke democracy (and the love of democracy as motive) is not shameful—to use that word?
I don’t know whether the contents of Hersh’s article are correct or not, and I don’t think the man (and I met him only a few times) is a Syrian Ba`thist or is a volunteer Shabbih, unless...has information to the contrary. But the attempt to impose one point of view on Syria has to be challenged. Western Zionists have succeeded in imposing a uniform propaganda narrative about the Arab-Israeli conflict in the West, and the advocates of the US-Saudi-Turkish-Israeli-Qatari alliance on Syria are attempting to do the same: to impose (in the media and even in academia) one narrative about the Syrian conflict. That would not hold especially that the very claims of the supporters of the Syrian “revolution”—if people are still not embarrassed to invoke that word—are being refuted on the ground on a daily basis.
There is much propaganda about the Syrian conflict from the perspective of the US-Saudi alliance, and why would someone be intolerant of one sole article that does not fit into the propaganda thesis of the US government? What does...propose here? That all articles on Syria in the Western press should adhere to the premises of the Western-Saudi alliance and if they deviate they should be dismissed as “shameful conspiracy theory”?
And talking about conspiracy theory: does the armed opposition side that....supports not invoke (often kooky—in my opinion) conspiracy theories? The armed opposition (and the exile organization) have in the last two years offered these nuggets of information: that Russia supports the Syrian regime because the Iranian regime bribed Putin and Lagrove; that Bashshar Al-Asad has a secret agreement with Israel which keeps him in power; that the Zionist lobby is preventing the US government from invading Syria to “liberate” the country; that Hizbullah has lost tens of thousands of fighters in Syria but has kept their names secret, that tens of thousands of Revolutionary Guards are fighting in Syria; and the armed groups have been making almost weekly claims for the last three years about chemical (and some even suggested that the regime has nuclear weapons) weapons attacks. So yes, the Syrian regime has a history of lying, but the armed groups and the exile Syrian opposition have proven that they are in no way less skilled in the art of fabrication, deception, and duplicity than the Syrian regime.
But...has another complaint about Hersh’s article: he complains that it does not “rely on any valuable evidence.” Now are the dispatches by Western correspondents from Beirut all based on “valuable evidence” when most of them are based on press releases of the Free Syrian Army and on skype with individuals whose names are supplied—you guessed it—by press functionaries of the Free Syrian Army?
The American media are easily intimidated by the government: those who write on foreign affairs (especially in the US and especially on the Middle East) are rarely people who are trained in Middle Eastern studies. They often don’t have their own independent basis of judgment. But this is—I remind you,...--an academic setting, and people can read what they wish and reach their own conclusions. Why should you feel nervous if one sole article that is not reflective of the US-Saudi-Qatari propaganda is posted here? "
"Let me say the following: the US, and Western media, in general have been publishing basically one point of view on Syria. I can’t think of one article in the US press in the last 3 years which questioned the premise of a Syrian “revolution”—that term has now become tragically comical. Not one article. Of course, I am not talking even about publishing articles representing the views of the Syrian regime, as there are at least three points of view on Syria but only one view is permitted. Even perspectives that are opposed to the Syrian regime and to the Syrian armed opposition (and its exile branches) are not welcome. Seymour Hersh was one of the most celebrated and respected US investigative journalists—until his articles contradicted the orientations of US foreign policy. Only then, Hersh became dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist”. (Having said that, I have no way of deciding whether the contents of his article are true or not as I am not a technical military expert and his article—not unlike articles that support the Syrian “revolution”—is based on anonymous sources. But I can certainly say that David Ignatius of the Washington Post (who has far less of a stellar journalistic record than Hersh) utilizes anonymous sources far more than Hersh, and the former was lauding Gen. Engineer Dr. Salim Idriss as the savior of Syria to the very day when he was replaced by the Saudi regime.
Now...describes Hersh’s article (and I am not talking about this article here nor will I discuss it in detail), as “shameful conspiracy theory”. Now this is polemical language, and I don’t know what he means by “shameful conspiracy theory.” Does he mean that all conspiracy theories are shameful, or only those conspiracy theories that contradict the narrative of a Syrian “revolution”? And what does shameful mean? This is a word that derives either from religious morality or from the morality of ancient societies. But let us leave that aside. If...is lamenting what he describes as a “conspiracy theory” then he is dead wrong. I don’t know how anyone can be a Middle East expert who has reviewed the modern history of the region and who has read the declassified documents pertaining to Western policies in the Middle East can dismiss conspiracy theory out of hand. When the US has “faked” a revolution against Mosaddeq in Iran in 1953, and when the Zionists have controlled through cash payments Middle East monarchs, and when the US faked evidence of WMDs in Iraq to justify an invasion and an occupation, and when the political map of the Middle East was created through a secret agreement in 1916, it would be unreasonable and irrational to dismiss conspiracy theory out of hand in Middle East analysis. It is more wise than to rule out conspiracy theories but one has to weigh the evidence carefully on a case-by-case basis.
And as to the facts about Syria, the leak of a taped meeting between high Turkish officials about Syria, in which a fake attack by Syria is proposed to justify Turkish military action in Syria, was never questioned and its veracity has been basically verified. So what was shameful about that conspiracy theory or other conspiracy theories? That Western governments lie and cheat and fabricate to justify their military action? That the US and its Saudi ally invoke democracy (and the love of democracy as motive) is not shameful—to use that word?
I don’t know whether the contents of Hersh’s article are correct or not, and I don’t think the man (and I met him only a few times) is a Syrian Ba`thist or is a volunteer Shabbih, unless...has information to the contrary. But the attempt to impose one point of view on Syria has to be challenged. Western Zionists have succeeded in imposing a uniform propaganda narrative about the Arab-Israeli conflict in the West, and the advocates of the US-Saudi-Turkish-Israeli-Qatari alliance on Syria are attempting to do the same: to impose (in the media and even in academia) one narrative about the Syrian conflict. That would not hold especially that the very claims of the supporters of the Syrian “revolution”—if people are still not embarrassed to invoke that word—are being refuted on the ground on a daily basis.
There is much propaganda about the Syrian conflict from the perspective of the US-Saudi alliance, and why would someone be intolerant of one sole article that does not fit into the propaganda thesis of the US government? What does...propose here? That all articles on Syria in the Western press should adhere to the premises of the Western-Saudi alliance and if they deviate they should be dismissed as “shameful conspiracy theory”?
And talking about conspiracy theory: does the armed opposition side that....supports not invoke (often kooky—in my opinion) conspiracy theories? The armed opposition (and the exile organization) have in the last two years offered these nuggets of information: that Russia supports the Syrian regime because the Iranian regime bribed Putin and Lagrove; that Bashshar Al-Asad has a secret agreement with Israel which keeps him in power; that the Zionist lobby is preventing the US government from invading Syria to “liberate” the country; that Hizbullah has lost tens of thousands of fighters in Syria but has kept their names secret, that tens of thousands of Revolutionary Guards are fighting in Syria; and the armed groups have been making almost weekly claims for the last three years about chemical (and some even suggested that the regime has nuclear weapons) weapons attacks. So yes, the Syrian regime has a history of lying, but the armed groups and the exile Syrian opposition have proven that they are in no way less skilled in the art of fabrication, deception, and duplicity than the Syrian regime.
But...has another complaint about Hersh’s article: he complains that it does not “rely on any valuable evidence.” Now are the dispatches by Western correspondents from Beirut all based on “valuable evidence” when most of them are based on press releases of the Free Syrian Army and on skype with individuals whose names are supplied—you guessed it—by press functionaries of the Free Syrian Army?
The American media are easily intimidated by the government: those who write on foreign affairs (especially in the US and especially on the Middle East) are rarely people who are trained in Middle Eastern studies. They often don’t have their own independent basis of judgment. But this is—I remind you,...--an academic setting, and people can read what they wish and reach their own conclusions. Why should you feel nervous if one sole article that is not reflective of the US-Saudi-Qatari propaganda is posted here? "
