Katie Halper is my favorite progressive YouTuber, and I think that she can really help to shed light on the controversial Syrian Civil War.
You’ll get one picture of the Syrian Civil War if you ask Aaron Maté or Rania Khalek about the conflict. And you’ll get a totally different picture of the Syrian Civil War if you ask Noam Chomsky or Gilbert Achcar about the conflict. I haven’t a clue where the truth is on this, and I’m sure that many others are equally in the dark.
It should be possible to host a polite/friendly discussion—not “debate”—between Maté/Khalek (or someone) on the one hand and Chomsky/Achcar (or someone) on the other hand. Halper could host this discussion in order to help to shed light on this controversial issue.
Right now, I don’t see that discussion anywhere.
I saw the infamous comments about Maté from Ana Kasparian, which appear to be slanderous. Slander is extremely serious, and I don’t know the legal situation regarding what Kasparian said. Don’t make extremely serious charges without extremely serious evidence to back up your accusations.
The problem is that Maté needs to encounter polite/friendly challenge. It can’t continue like this, where he either gets slandered or else he gets praised. There has to be a third option: polite/friendly challenge, so that the audience can find out the truth.
Last night I watched Rania Khalek’s appearance on Katie Halper’s show, and I want to put forward two polite/friendly challenges about what Khalek said.
First, Khalek said at one point in the show that the serious issues around Syria need to be put front-and-center, and that any discussion about gossip/beef should be secondary. (I agree, but I would go further and say that gossip/beef should be eliminated altogether.) But the problem is that Khalek/Halper went on to talk about…gossip/beef. So maybe I misunderstood, in which case I apologize for the confusion, but it seems like they went on to talk about the very things that Khalek had just said were unhealthy distractions from the serious issues around Syria.
Second, Khalek commented that Chomsky/Achcar don’t live in the Middle East, which suggests to me that Khalek probably has weak arguments on Syria. You present your arguments if you’re strong in the domain of argument, whereas you bring up irrelevancies if you’re weak in the domain of argument. It’s irrelevant where someone lives or what ethnicity/class/gender they are. People who live in the Middle East can have absolutely no clue what’s going on in the Middle East, and people who live outside the Middle East can know exactly what’s going on in the Middle East. So Khalek might actually have good arguments on Syria, but my logic is that she probably wouldn’t bring up these irrelevancies if that were the case. Once again, I’m open to correction here, so let me know if my logic is flawed or if I’m confused.
I hope that there can be serious discussion on Syria—polite/friendly, and not a “debate”—that can put an end to this toxic situation where you get slander on one side, praise on the other side, but no third option that will actually enlighten the audience as to the realities in Syria.
I’ll leave off with some grim comments that Chomsky made back in 2013:
CF: In your opinion what is really at stake in what’s unravelling in Syria at the moment, and what does it mean for the broader region?
NC: Well, Syria is descending into suicide. It’s a horror story and getting worse and worse. There’s no bright spot on the horizon. What will probably happen, if this continues, is that Syria will be partitioned into probably three regions; a Kurdish region—which is already forming—that could pull out and join in some fashion the semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan, maybe with some kind of deal with Turkey.
The rest of the country will be divided between a region dominated by the Assad regime—a brutal horrifying regime—and another section dominated by the various militias, which range from the extremely malicious and violent to the secular and democratic. Meanwhile, Israel is looking by and enjoying the spectacle. If you look at the New York Times this morning there’s a quote by an Israeli official essentially expressing their joy at watching Arabs slaughter each other.
I really like your point here: "It’s irrelevant where someone lives or what ethnicity/class/gender they are. People who live in the Middle East can have absolutely no clue what’s going on in the Middle East, and people who live outside the Middle East can know exactly what’s going on in the Middle East." Please keep up the good work.