Nèdeem Elmahjoub's blog

There is little historical evidence to trust that any French leader would have done things differently.  The rights of global south populations cannot possibly match those bestowed upon the civilised masses in Europe, so why undermine the potential for profit for those who are so disposable? Or perhaps his universalism is genuine - which would explain his own commitment to violent repression of political movements and the repeated assaults  on civil liberties in France.  The French state’s relationship to "rights" is always connected to its own interests, as is the “terrorism” it claims to fight . Sisi and the hypocrisy of France’s so-called defence of human rights

A long tradition of complicity in crime This article is available in four languages An indispensable’ partner in the  EU ’s strategy in the Middle East and the Mediterranean 

Syria and beyond Many "leftists" in Britain, who keep marching for Palestinians, for example), viewed the Syrian regime as "progressive"with socialistic elements, anti-Western imperialism, and its main backer, Russia, as a balancer to American imperialism. 
Many "liberals" viewed the Syrian regime as "secular", the lesser evil, the one whose leader and first lady were Western-educated and enlightened. After all, it was the Islamic State group that "threatened our way of life", not al-Assad. Many now will consent to normalising relationship with the "victor": Some Arab states have already began such a process and Western ones will follow suit. Capital will thrive and old and new wealthy oligarchs will join hands. And, of course, the language of "human rights" and prosecuting the perpetrators are among those commodities which will accompany "reconstruction" and "normalisation". 
Is protec