Truths about the Yarmouk camp that western mainstream media and Arab channels suppress

The twisted and flawed „logic“ of many western and (Gulf) Arab media outlets regarding the Yarmouk camp of Palestinian refugees in Damascus goes as follows:
– The Palestinians in Yarmouk (but also in other camps) hate Assad and support the „revolution“
– Assad and the Syrian government (who for more than 40 years have been hosting the Palestinians) hate the Palestinians because they are (mostly) Sunnis
– The Syrian army is bombing the camp, keeping it under siege and starving the inhabitants
– The inhabitants love and support the Syrian rebels because the latter „defend“ the Palestinians and fight against the „regime“
– Only anti-Assad Palestinian factions in Yarmouk are fighting against ISIS

If someone is interested in a more authentic and less propagandist version of the camps recent story, I refer to following articles:

<<„There is intermittent fighting between Palestinian factions and IS and Al-Nusra Front which are trying to retake positions in the centre of Yarmuk,“ Khaled Abdel Majid, head of the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front which is close to Syria’s regime, told AFP…He said Syrian regime aircraft have bombarded Al-Hajar al-Aswad, which is jihadist-held.>>

pro-Assad Palestinian militias are fighting a grinding battle to the death against the Islamic State.“
<<“The cease-fire details were in place and ready to be implemented by the end of March 2015 when the terrorists of Daesh and Nusra launched their attack on the camp, scuttling all previous efforts,”>>
„The recent battle against the Islamic State, for instance, saw a number of defections from Hamas-controlled militant group Aknaf Bayt al-Maqdis — previously allied with opposition factions in the camp — to the regime side, after the Islamic State beheaded 10 Aknaf men. But other fighters from the group defected to Nusra and the Islamic State. According to Palestinian sources, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, who is based in Qatar, made several calls to PFLP-GC leader Jibril, as well as Hezbollah and Amal leaders in Lebanon, in order to secure the safety of Aknaf fighters. Now, approximately 160 Aknaf fighters are fighting alongside the regime
<<Unlike Hamas, we are loyal to Syria. Syria was loyal to Palestine.”>>

while the civilian population is suffering the lashes of hunger, thirst and dwindling medical supplies, militants inside the camp appear to be largely unaffected by the siege. On the contrary these groups seem to be well-armed, fully weaponized (at least to the extent that enables them to retain full military control over the majority of the camp despite the ongoing siege) and on multiple occasions have even instigated clashes and firefights with the Syrian army.

This begs the question: what prevents these militants from using their own supply routes and active ammunition channels to soften the impact of the regime-imposed siege on the civilian population inside the camp, keeping in mind that areas bordering Yarmouk from its southern entrance are controlled by the “rebels” themselves? ““

„The West“ and it´s arrogance in promoting and deriding elections elsewhere

„The West“, a phrase by which mainly The US and its western European NATO allies are meant considers itself and only itself entitled and qualified to determine who deserves to be voted, boycotted and overthrown in any country.

The rules of the game are quite easy:
If the ruler is pro-Russian or his country predominantly in the Russian geopolitical hemisphere he is almost by definition illegitimate. So, if any political, religious or ethnic group raises in opposition to such a country’s government, the oppositions autonomy and separatism oriented demands are legitimate. The ruler has to give in to the alleged will of „the people“ and relinquish power. If a part of such a pro-Russian state holds a referendum and demands autonomy, western politicians will be the first to support secessionist ideas and apply pressure to the central government.
Examples are ex-Yugoslavia and Syria.

If absolutely democratic elections are held and the outcome – thus the majority will of the people – does not please „the West“, the elected government will be shunned at best and isolated and sanctioned at worst. The voters will be punished for making the „wrong“ decision. So democracy and free elections do not protect anyone from the wrath of the West, and at the same time the West does not see any violation of its otherwise proudly propagated values such as freedom of choice.
Examples are the elections of Hamas in Palestine and Mohammad Morsi in Egypt.

If you are the man of the West or at least the enemy of the West´s enemy you can forcefully remove a democratically elected government, e.g. through a military coup, and win dubious elections, sometimes with 93% of the votes and afterwards be praised by the West as legitimate winner.
Examples are the Egyptian and Ukrainian elections

So, while Assads 88% are brushed off as „farce“ or „parody of the democracy“, Sisis 93% are supposed to be regarded as serious and respectable outcome.

Assad und die Palästinenser

Palästinenser sollten die letzten sein, die auf Assad schimpfen. Die Wurzel aller Probleme Assads und Syriens ist die ungebrochene Solidarität mit den (sunnitischen) Palästinensern. Die „sunnitischen“ Staaten Jordanien und Ägypten schlossen Frieden mit Israel und haben ihre Ruhe, während der angeblich ach so sunnitenfeindliche Staat des Alawiten Assad weiterhin auf die Rückgabe der Golanhöhen pocht und keinen Friedensvertrag mit Israel eingeht. Würde Assad heute mit Israel Frieden schliessen, würden die Sanktionen in Kürze fallen, und die Bewaffnung und die Hofierung der Rebellen durch Israels westliche Unterstützer aufhören. Die USA würden Saudi Arabien und Katar zurückpfeiffen. Assad würde Gelder und Hilfen für den Wiederaufbau bekommen.

Assads Syrien, das ein relativ armes Drittweltland und keine von Gastarbeitern und Einwanderern aufrecht erhaltene, von den USA geschützte Petrodollarmonarchie ist beherbergt seit Jahrzehnten Hunderttausende Palästinenser. Selbst die untreue Hamas ist friedlich gegangen und wurde nicht wie die PLO in Jordanien anno 1970 (Schwarzer September) mit Tausenden Toten aus dem Land gejagt.

Die Palästinapolitik der Assads ist der beste Beleg, dass das Baathregime in Syrien durchaus säkular veranlagt ist und nicht religiös motiviert. Würde man die mehrheitlich sunnitischen Rebellen ihrer sunnitischen Glaubensrichtung wegen bekämpfen, würde es keinen Sinn machen, seit Jahrzehnten Partei für die Sunniten Palästinas zu ergreifen. Ausserdem würde sich unter solchen Umständen keine syrische Armee aufrecht erhalten, die mehrheitlich aus Sunniten besteht.