skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This from the BBC:
Ukrainian opposition leaders have issued an ultimatum to President Viktor Yanukovych, after talks failed to resolve the political stalemate.
Vitali Klitschko said he would lead pro-EU protesters "on the attack" in the capital, Kiev, if the government refused to call snap elections.
Prime Minister Mykola Azarov said compromises "might be possible", but the opposition should avoid ultimatums.
Notice the difference in tone?
Opposition: ultimatum, attack
Regime: compromise, might be possible, should avoid
Does that not say in all?
In the meantime, some more photographs of the recent events:
Sent to me by an old friend:
This is a picture taken off a live stream from the Grushevski street in the center of Kiev at 10:45EST today:
The riot police has only been given the right to use water cannons, teargas and flash-bang grenades. In the meantime, the cops are burned alive by Molotov cocktails and the US is introducing sanctions against "Ukrainian officials responsible for the violence in the center of Kiev".
The Saker
It just happens that a group of lawyers make a report on human rights in Syria. It just happens that they had previously done the same in the former Yugoslavia. It just happens that their report is based on one single and anonymous source. It just happens that this anonymous source claims to have been employed by the Syrian regime to, you guessed it, make photos of dead bodies. It also just happens that this "confidential" report was leaked just ahead of a conference whose main sticking point just happens to be whether the AngloZio Empire will allow Assad to stay in power or not. It just happens that nobody in the corporate media questions this sequence of events. And it just happens that Lavrov is the only one who says that any such report must be carefully investigated before it is believed. According to The Guardian, the three lawyers just happen to find the secret source "credible and truthful and his account "most compelling". It also just happens that the three lawyers work for a firm contracted by the Qatari government.
Sadly, it also just happens that most people are zombified morons who forgot about Saddam, Nayirah and the Kuwaiti incubators, about Timosoara and Ceaucescu, about Markale, Racak, and the Serbian "concentration camps" in Bosnia and the Srebrenica "genocide", about Gaddafi's Viagra distribution to his soldiers to rape Libyan women or about how the Iranian Revolutionary Guard shot Neda in Tehran or how Chavez ordered snipers to shoot at Venezuelan people.
I don't mean to say that most people are zombified morons for knowing about these horrors. I say that most people are zombified morons for not knowing that these horrors were debunked and for believing this laughable report about Syria.
I won't even mention Iranian laptops with bomb designs or Venezuelan laptops with FARC-Chavez ties. Heck, I won't even mention Saddam's WMDs or the fact that it is the official narrative about 9/11 which is an absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theory which contradicts Newtonian physics at a high-school level of understanding.
I am *tired* of idiots who cannot add 2 and 2 or who can repeat the exact same "mistake" over and over and over again. I am *tired* of feeling like the world has gone apeshit crazy and that I am the only one who remembers events which took place only 20 or so years ago. I am *tired* of a world were photos are used in lieu of arguments and in which even basic rules of logic seem to have completely disappeared. And I am *tired* of trying to be polite and courteous to self-satisfied imbeciles whose ignorance and sheer stupidity has put them beyond reach of a rational argument.
I can forgive the world for being so friggin stupid about Bosnia. It's unfair, it's tragic, it's sad, but ok, it was the first time. But when I see exactly the same shit taking place in Syria I get really really mad.
Man, there are days when disgust just overcomes me...
Sorry, I had to vent. Tomorrow is another day (hopefully).
Cheers,
The Saker
As always, Lavrov makes a brilliant case for his point of view. I still think that Russia made a major mistake, but I can't help liking Lavrov a lot and finding him absolutely brilliant. I hope that he has some kind of game-plan I am not aware of.
It's a long press conference, but at least listen to his reply to the first question as it is about Syria and his answer is nothing short of brilliant. But if you can - listen to the full thing. It is a major review of Russian diplomatic and political goals for the near future.
The Saker
This is what Lavrov said today in reaction to the disinvitation of Iran: "this is a mistake, but not a disaster". He also pointed out that Iran had been disinvited for saying exactly the same thing as Russia: that Geneva I could not be "interpreted" as mandating Assad's departure. And then he added: "so what, they are going to disinvite us next? this is crazy!".
Guys, I am sorry, but Russia just screwed up, badly. Here is why:
Logical mistake:
First, what are "negotiations"? They are discussions between two or more parties. In this case, there are really two parties here: the pro-Assad party and the anti-Assad party. Well, since when does not party get to dictate the membership of the other party? If the anti-Assad party says that Iran is not invited, why can't the pro-Assad party demand that France be excluded on the grounds that French Foreign Minister Fabius had declared that Assad did not deserve to live on our planet?
Tactical mistake:
Second, there can be no doubt that the pro-Assad side is winning the war. So why does the losing side get to set terms?! If anything, it should be the other way around. And if the losing side is setting such outrageous terms, then the winning side should simply reject them and walk away. By agreeing to these terms, the pro-Assad side is acting as if it was losing.
Political mistake:
Third, now that the pro-Assad forces have agreed to take this "slap in the face" without any reaction, this encourages the anti-Assad forces to take an uncompromising stance. A negotiation which begins in an uncompromising manner will not end with a compromise. And why should it? All the anti-Assad side will do now is demand, demand and demand.
Moral mistake:
Fourth, Iran simply has the moral right to be at that table. Ethics and morals should count, if not for the Ziocrazies and the Anglos, then for the Resistance. Iran fought to protect Syria, Iranians died in combats to protect the Syrians from the Wahabi reptiles. Iran stood by one almost nobody had the courage to openly oppose the international terrorist constellation which the corporate media calls the "opposition". How can Russia and Syria just walk away from Iran when Iran played a crucial role in the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance? How can the Syrians and the Russians allow Indonesia or Brazil to attend but not Iran? This is not how you treat friends, if you ask me.
Diplomatic mistake:
Fifth and last, considering that this conference is starting in such a absurd way, it will most likely end in a failure. In fact, I think that it would be better for it to end in a failure because only a failure of this conference can be used to prove that Iran's presence is "a must" for a deal to be reached. Then the blame game will start. If Syria and Russia has refused to even show up in solidarity with Iran, and if they have made a halfway articulate case for that, the blame would have fallen upon the crazy US demands. Instead, the US gets to sabotage the conference and walk away like nothing happened.
So what now?
Bosnia redux
It appears that neither Russia nor Syria will be walking away. Frankly, my best hope at this point is a comprehensive failure of the conference as I rather get no agreement at all than an agreement which will sell out the advantages which the Syrian military secured at the costs of the blood of its soldiers. Alas, Само слога Србина спасава (Samo sloga Srbina spasava) which can be translated as "only unity will save the Serbs".
the pressure will now be on some kind of deal, this is Bosnia revisited again, and we all know how this ended the first time around: the Serbs won the war, the Muslims refused to negotiate in good faith, the US intervened. But most importantly, the AngloZionists succeeded in breaking up the Serbs into several groups: first, Milosevic back-stabbed the Bosnian-Serbs and agreed to help the blockade against them; then, inside Bosnia, the so-called "Federal forces" were either withdrawn or agreed to put their weapons under UN control; then the Serbs from the Krajinas in Croatia were told that their issue was a separate one from the one of the Bosnia-Serbs and then having nicely split them up, the US and NATO attacked them all. What all the Serbs had forgotten at the time is the meaning of their main symbol, the "four s"
The strength of the Hezbollah-Syria-Iran-Russia alliance also is in its unity. It is only this unity which defeated the Wahabis at al-Qusayr and which stopped an imminent US attack on Syria. Now that unity is compromised, if not fundamentally, than at least externally.
No, Russia and Syria made a huge mistake in accepting such a last minute affront from the anti-Assad camp and its UN puppet. Using Lavrov's own words, I think that caving in to such brazen arrogance is also a mistake, and not a disaster, but I will add that avoiding a disaster is now the order of the day. Nothing good can come out of Geneva II.
The Saker
OMG - it happened: Under US pressure UN "disinvites" Iran from Geneva II talks. Now that is a direct challenge to Russia which logically should cancel its participation to the conference. Syria, I believe should do the same.
Screw them. This is a farce and neither Syria nor Russia should agree to participate in a farce organized by the side which lost the war. I hope that Assad and Putin will not accept that absolutely outrageous situation.
Lavrov had declared that Iran's absence from Geneva II would be an "unforgivable mistake" and "profane" (he actually said that it would be a "profanation" which in Russian means something close to "abomination"). Great! Now act on these words and pull out of this charade!
I want to clarify the following here: the minor reason why Russia and Syria should refuse to attend Geneva II without Iran is that Iran's exclusion just makes no sense. But that is the minor reason only. The major reason for refusing these terms is that the USA and the so-called "opposition" have lost the war and they are in no position to set terms. History, including Russian history, has seen many examples of the loosing side dictating terms to the winning side and that is always a recipe for disaster. Last time Russia "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory" was at the infamous "Khasavyurt agreement" but that is hardly the only case.
Maybe I am being unfair to Putin, Lavrov and Assad, but I am literally terrified that they will fall into this trap. But then, I am paranoid and pessimistic by natural inclination, upbringing, training and philosophy. I hope that I am wrong this time...
So far, all we know is that Kerry called Lavrov today (the 20th). No more details so far.
The Saker
PS: just listened to the 3AM Russian news. Just reporting the fact. No reaction so far from Lavrov or Putin. I have this really bad feeling....
Yesterday some very serious riots took place in Kiev. The Yanukovich government has passed a new law which attempts to restrict the kind of rioting the Ukraine has seen in the past months, and the response of the rioters was a full scale assault on the riot police. What I find the most appalling is that the government is ordering the riot cops to just stand there and hold their position, but not to fight back. That, of course, only serves to heighten the already strong sense of impunity of the rioters who now attack the cops with Molotov cocktails, large rocks, metal bars, teargas, knives and fire extinguishers. Numerous cops were hospitalized yesterday after begin attacked by the rioters. Still, the cops are under strict orders not to fight back while the US is demanding that the riot police be removed from the streets. And in the meantime, what does the Yanukovich government say? They are offering to negotiate with the opposition.
With every passing day, Yanukovich reminds me more and more of Alexander Kerensky, and I am afraid that, just like Kerensky, Yanukovich will end up running for his life while thugs and terrorists seize power.
To get a feel for what took place on Sunday, please check out this Russian TV report (in Russian, but the images speak for themselves):
In the meantime, the website Vilayat Dagestan, which is linked to the so-called Ansar al-Sunna terrorist organization has published a video featuring footage of the two men who committed the recent suicide attacks in Volgograd. Entitled "Appeal of Suleiman and Abdurakhman before the martyrdom operation in Volgograd" the video shows how they built their bombs and it includes a threat directly made to Vladimir Putin who is told that Ansar al-Sunna is preparing a "surprise" for him and for the Olympic tourists to avenge the blood of Muslims which is shed worldwide. The video is 45min long and in Russian, but if you want to check it out for yourself, here it is:
Now, the two guys on the video are dead, as are many, possibly most or even all, of their accomplices which were located and killed by Russian special forces. Still, the threat, I think, is real and should be taken very seriously.
There is more than just threats made by all sorts of Wahabi crazies. There seems to be a concerted propaganda campaign by the Western corporate media to convince the general public that these Olympic games have some kind of special meaning for Putin who, as the BBC put it recently, "has staked his reputation on this event". I have no idea where they got this notion, but it is most definitely not based on anything factual, if only because "staking his reputation" on a sports event is not at all the kind of stuff Putin would do. Yet the Western propaganda machine is in full swing telling us that these upcoming games are somehow a crucial test for Putin. This tells me that the western special services are, again, up to no good and that for all the US promises to work with the Russians for the security of this event, the reality is that somebody somewhere is preparing a big attack on these games.
The Russian author and dramatist Anton Chekhov used to say that if you put a gun on stage in the first act of a play, it should be fired in the second act. Well, the gun is clearly hanging on the wall and the first act is about to begin. Whether it will be fired in the second act is now in God's hands.
The Saker
It took a lot of zigs and zags, but eventually common sense seemed to have prevailed and the UN has officially announced that Iran will be invited as a full participant to the Geneva 2 conference. The Obama Administration should probably commended for being rational and not gone down the insane road of trying to negotiate something in Syria without inviting Iran. Most of the credit in this case goes to Putin and Lavrov who from the beginning made Iran's full participation a condicio sine qua non for a Russian participation to the planned conference. Apparently, the USA's agreement was "bought" by a rather infantile face-saving ploy to "dilute" Iran amongst other wholly irrelevant countries such as Austria, Luxembourg or Mexico. I think of them as "diplomatic plankton". That's fine - everybody present understands "who is who" and "what is what" - and most participants will simply wait to be told to sign on the dotted line by the real players. As for the "opposition" - the Saudi backed Takfiris refused to attend, the US-backed "moderates" will show up. This is basically the best possible lineup.
What can we expect now?
Nobody knows and your guess is as good as mine.
Ideally, the best possible outcome for Syria would be a deal between the US and Syria which would leave Assad in power, the organization of a multi-party elections and constitutional reforms to be adopted by means of a referendum. In plain English, this means "Assad remains in power". This is the logical solution if only because 1) by all estimates Assad has the support of a majority of the Syrian people and 2) his regime has won the war. This is what Russia and Iran would prefer. The Saudis will never accept that. Which leaves the US to decide whether this is an acceptable option or not. Considering that the US Neocons are firmly in control of Congress and the US corporate Ziomedia, it would be politically very very difficult for Obama's Administration to agree to such a deal. With US elections coming up fairly soon, I really don't think that the US will accept that.
Second option, is the same as the first one (organization of a multi-party elections and constitutional reforms to be adopted by means of a referendum), but with a clear date for exit foreseen for Assad. That is a much better option for the US which could "declare victory and leave" - an old and honored US tradition. The big problem with this option is that the Syrian people might not like being told that their President and victor of the war must leave "kuz the US says so". Russia also said many times that "only the Syrian people must decide who is in power" which could indicate a Russian rejection of such an option. Both Iran and Russia might not want to weaken the winning party by agreeing to what can only be called a "US ordered coup via a UN Conference". Besides, even if Assad agreed to step down, what would the guarantees be that the US will not reignite the war at a latter date? The US will push for that option, but I don't see the other side accepting either.
Option three is obvious: no agreement is found and all parties depart blaming each other for the failure. This is a bad outcome almost by definition, but I think that time is on Assad's side and that means that this is a worse outcome for the US than it would be for the Syria-Iran-Russia alliance. It is hard to imagine a mechanism by which the tide of the war could be reversed and, in fact, all the signs on the ground are that the opposition is very close to a military and political collapse. Of course, whether the Ziocrazies in the USA understand that, or even whether they are willing to accept the facts in "realworld" is dubious. They might press on just because they are so out of touch with reality.
Which leaves option four. In very general terms a viable "option four" would probably be based on some kind of alliance between the pro-US opposition and the regime against the
Takfiris. I honestly don't know whether such an option can be adopted in Geneva II. Assuming a fourth option is found, that is the one that, God willing, will be hammered out in detail between Russia, the US, Iran and Syria and, if the relevant parties agree, will be submitted for (automatic) approval to the "diplomatic plankton" representing the so-called "international community". If that happens, the KSA will be told in no uncertain terms to "give it up or else", at least for the time being.
What is your take on this situation and what do you think will happen at Geneva II?
Please let us know.
The Saker
UPDATE1: Just as I had finished the above, I saw a news item saying that the Syrian opposition announced that unless Iran is dis-invited, they will not participate. In a tweet, SNC spokesman Louay Safi wrote: "The Syrian Coalition announces that they will withdraw their attendance in G2 unless Ban Ki-moon retracts Iran's invitation" reports the BBC. For the life of me I cannot image a dumber statement to make: don't they understand that their only chance of survival is to hammer out some kind of deal with the regime in order to get rid of the Takfiris? This makes me wonder if the SNC is being pushed towards that kind of suicidal stance by Israel and the US Ziocons (a la McCain). Does anybody still remember how the US told Itzebegovich to retract his agreement to a negotiated solution in Bosnia? But this is not Bosnia, but 2014 and if the SNC think that they can repeat the Bosnian tactic they are mistaken. If this is how the "moderate" opposition acts, I am inclined to think that there is only one solution left: a total military victory by the regime.
What is your take on that latest zag by the SNC?
UPDATE2: Now its the US which is "zagging": according to the BBC, the US is now also telling the UN that Iran must be dis-invited. Such a reversal by the US is infantile, unprofessional and simply utterly ridiculous. The more this kind of nonsense goes on, the more I wonder if Assad and Syria would not be better off simply winning this war without any form of negotiations at all...
JohnM has just posted an interesting commentary about the current events in Syria which, I think, deserves to be fully quoted. Here is what he wrote:
What I'm thinking is that as part of an Assad/Russia deal with the
"non-Islamic rebels" (label is arbitrary and largely inaccurate) is this
current battle between generally (this is a VERY fluid and fuzzy
dividing line) the foreign fighters versus the local fighters. This deal
(if it exists) is very nebulous, involves a lot of ifs and its desired
outcome is a big Goat Rodeo. Just the sort of stuff they live on in this
area (both geographic and on the foreign policy level).
As
part of coming in from the cold, the local based fighters are told to
clean their house (get rid of the foreign nut job extremists) and then a
deal can be done. Amnesties, changes to the constitution (damn if I
know what their constitution states or even if they have one), perhaps
some kind of political structure akin to Lebanon, power sharing
(probably limited and local considering the Kurds would have to be part
of this) and to be capped off with elections for various and all
positions would be on the table. This would be supervised by say
Russia, China and the West in the form of say Germany and/or even the
US.
Obama gets a capstone for his presidency (already in tatters,
so he needs something). Russia gets prestige and some roll back of
extremism on it's southern flank. China gets business. Europe gets
business and pipelines. Assad get's some peace, some rehabilitation with
whatever PR he wants or needs, depending on how he plays it. Saudi gets
the stick up its ass.
What to watch over the next couple of
months will be Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi. Turkey will have to come
visibly into line on this since I foresee some kind of federated Syria
with a large amount of autonomy for the Kurds (very thorny problem).
Turkey also has to deal with the foreign fighters on their soil, those
running from Syria and the high horse they have climbed onto when they
changed their foreign policy 2 to 3 years back. Jordan has kept a
relatively low profile but has similar problems. Iraq will have to deal
with the extremists (call them whatever you wish, they're certifiable)
coming back and raising Hell. Some of this is already manifesting itself
(visibly to the western media at least) in Fallujah with the Tribes
splitting overtly with AQI. Saudi (and Israel) will scream, pout and
make threats. It remains to be seen how far they will push it.
Now my naturally pessimistic inclinations usually make me doubt any hypothesis in which a previously irrational party suddenly begins to act in a rational way. In this case, that previously irrational party would be both the FSA and the USA. However, this skepticism of mine is counter-balanced by the fact that the G8 agreement reached in Lough Erne had something very similar unambiguously spelled out. I quoted the text of the agreement on my blog, with the key words in red and my comments in blue:
We are deeply concerned by the
growing threat from terrorism and extremism in Syria,and also by the
increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict. Syria must belong to all
Syrians, including its minorities and all religious groups. We
call on the Syrian authorities and opposition at the Geneva Conference
jointly to commit to destroying and expelling from Syria all
organisations and individuals affiliated to Al Qaeda, and any other
non-state actors linked to terrorism (amazing
sentence! The insurgency and the government of Syria are called upon
to JOINTLY *destroy* the very forces which the USA wants to arm? That
the government would be more than happy to destroy or expel al-Nusra is
clear, but the FSA? Is the G8 really calling for a civil war inside the
insurgency!?).
At the time nobody paid attention to these words, but the fact is that this text was signed by the G8 and that it seemed to suggest exactly what we see taking place today. Of course, what is taking place today might not be the result of the G8 agreement at all, but simply the inevitable outcome of a conflict whose dynamics are pretty much pre-ordained. If we assume that not all anti-Assad forces are composed of Takfiri reptiles and if we assume that Assad is willing to work with anybody sane (and I think that both of these assumptions are reasonable), then the logical thing would be for all non-Takfiri forces to join their efforts against the crazies. What is certain is that the Takfiri infection has now reached Fallujah in Iraq which, in turn, is putting in motion some kind of US/Iraqi/Iranian reaction as nobody can afford yielding a strategic city to a horde of crazed Wahabis. Objectively, the US, Iran and Syria should be working together against the Takfiri crazies throughout the region. The big "IF" is whether there is anybody with the brains and the balls in the White House to understand that and act on it.
Still, the notion is tempting, to say the least. I think of how often the Russians say "every Wahabi which Assad kills is one that we won't have to kill in the Caucasus" and I wonder if somebody in Washington DC can come to terms with the notion that "every Wahabi which Assad kills is one that we won't have to kill in Iraq/Afghanistan/Somalia/Yemen/etc.".
I think that John is totally correct when he says that the impact of this change in dynamics (assuming it continues) on the neighboring countries will be crucial. Honestly, I think that the Turks acted with a mind-boggling stupidity and now they have to come to terms that there will be a price to pay for their arrogance. Their options are bad: either deal with the Kurds or deal with the Takfiri liver-eaters. I think that the better deal is obvious: deal with the Kurds. First, the Kurds are *rational* and then even have a common enemy (the Wahabi crazies). Second, it is about time for the Turks to finally begin seeking a long-term agreement with the Kurds or risk loosing it all. If the Turks really believe that they can "control" the Kurds by pure force they are kidding themselves and from a negotiating point of view they are much better off negotiating with the Kurds now, when the Kurds are also in a difficult situation, than later when the Kurds might find themselves in a strong position both in Iraq and in Syria (both of these regimes have indicated that are willing to work out a deal with the Kurds).
Anyway - am want to throw out this hypothesis: could it be that what we are seeing in Syria is a strategic shift in alliances and that the next phase of the war will be one of the KSA, the Gulf monarchies and the various al-Qaeda franchises will end up fighting against the USA, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and the Kurds?
If not - what do you think is going on?
Cheers,
The Saker
First, thanks to gallier2 for pointing out this rather surprisingly reasonable video about Dieudonne and the "quenelle" gesture; this report even features a short interview of Alain Soral who explains what is really going on. I never would have thought that the BBC could still produce such a more or less well balanced and reasonable report.
Second, as I have mentioned in a previous report, Minister of the Interior Manuel Valls has urged the local authorities to ban the latest show of Dieudonne (entitled "Le Mur" or "The Wall"). Here is what then happened:
The Prefet of the Préfecture of the Loire-Atlantique Department decided to ban Dieudonne's show in the city of Nantes. Now, to really understand what happened, I need to explain something here:
France has always been an amazingly diverse and multi-cultural country and the Masonic revolutionary regime in France knew from "Day 1" that it has little or no popular support. This is why the revolutionaries decided to break up traditional France into regions that they would control through the use of specially appointed representatives: the "Departments" were created in December of 1789 which made it possible for the central power in Paris to have a local representative - a "prefet" - who could over-rule any local authority and always impose the will of the central government. The "Prefecture of Loire-Atlantique" is a region also created by the French Revolutionaries to remove the historical capital of the Brittany region - Nantes - from the rest of Brittany. It is this century old mechanism of repressing the local authorities by Paris which has been used against Dieudonne.
In reaction to the ban, Dieudonne's lawyers appealed to the "juge des référés" - a special judge which does not rule on the substance of a dispute, but which can order provisional emergency measures called "ordinances" to defend the rights and freedoms of one of the parties in a dispute. In this case the judge suspended the ban imposed by the Prefect. This was a short victory for Dieudonne as the Minister of Interior Manuel Valls then lodged an emergency appeal to the "Conseil d’État" (State Council) to ban the show, which, predictably, the latter was more than happy to do. Indeed, Wikipedia defined the "Conseil d’État" as "a body of the French national government that acts both as legal adviser of the executive branch and as the supreme court for administrative justice". In other words, it is the tool used by the Executive Branch to make sure that it prevails in any legal dispute.
This would all be hilarious if it wasn't for the totally over-the-top reaction of the French government which is truly going completely apeshit over what is simply a stand up comic act. Within minutes - literally - of hearing the decision of the "juge des référés" Vals filed an emergency appeal to the State Council which itself took only minutes to issue its ban all just in time to prevent Dieudonne to perform. It is outright pathetic to see the manic hysteria which has seized the French government.
And this is now far from over. The French courts will now have to tackle with the following issues:
a) should Dieudonne be banned for his alleged "apology of hate" and "anti-Semitism" or for "threat to the public order"?
b) what should be the object of the ban: the show or the comedian?
c) can a show be banned even before it is performed?
d) is a comedian liable for what he says on stage?
e) should Dieudonne's shows be re-branded as "political meetings" and then banned as such?
f) what about his online videos? what is the point of banning a show if it can be watch on the Internet?
What absolutely everybody understands in France is that the regime is just seeking a legal figleaf to justify its political repression of a type of speech it does not like. Alas, France does have a long tradition of crushing free speech. Not only did Voltaire never say "I disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it" - he himself viciously persecuted many people for the "crime" of making fun on him. And there is no such thing as the ACLU in France, nor is there a First Amendment. But the worst aspect of French political culture is its extreme polarization and intolerance whose roots go straight back to the bloody events of the French Revolution. Whether the French plutocratic elites and their government realize it or not, their hysterical attitude is definitely having a polarizing effect on the French youth which is now rallying in bigger and bigger numbers around the Dieudonne-Soral tag team while there are zero signs of popular support for the position of the Jewish organizations, the French plutocracy or the Hollande government.
What is happening is a sweet paradox: Dieudo and Soral are basically accusing the French Zionist lobby of being almighty and above the law in France. The French Zionist lobby's reaction to this accusation it to use its infinite power and above the law status to crush the free speech of Dieudo and Soral thereby proving them right. For example, the French elites categorically deny that the Zionist lobby has the power of banning somebody from appearing on TV while at the same time the entire country knows that Soral and Dieudo have been banned (before they dared to criticize the power of the French Zionist lobby both were very often seen on TV). Now even the shows which discuss and analyse the "quenelle" phenomenon are always recorded without inviting Dieudo or Soral to speak. Just like de Gaulle, Soral now speaks from London...
My biggest fear at the moment is for the physical safety of Soral and Dieudonne as I would most definitely not put it past the French elites to order their assassination. True, whether the French special units would actually execute such an order is very dubious, but the French can always call on the Israelis to do the dirty job for them, leaving the secondary task of botching the investigation to the French authorities. But then, the Kidon also has a very checkered record, to say the least, and if they screw-up this one the scandal would be absolutely huge. So the "lone, 'crazy' killer" (US favorite method) is probably the biggest threat to Dieudo and Soral. That, or a "tragic accident" (Russian favorite method).
May God protect these two men.
The Saker
