Two sides of the same coin

Some of the crippling, far-fetched conditions put forth by Jordanian columnists and politicians to support the Syrian opposition are ironic, pathetic and hilarious at the same time. It is not only because they’re far-fetched but because its supporters give themselves weight and status that they – more than anyone else – know they don’t have. The picture in the end looks like some tabloid cartoon rather than an “analysis” or a “viewpoint”. Here, one demands opposition to reclaim Iskenderun and show commitment to liberating Golan Heights and Palestine together, through war not peace. Another calls on opposition to adopt specific economic and social theories. A third insists that opposition should make commitments first to revoke all “armed operations” and accept the authority of the army and state on all Syrian territories. A fourth wants them to declare rebellion against the “Sykes-Picot maps”. A fifth is reminding them of the one nation of an everlasting message. A sixth doesn’t accept anything less than a civil, secular, democratic, diverse state. And the list goes on with what’s in people’s baggage of conditions and demands raised in the face of opposition in exchange for recognising it. The mysterious part is that the setters of these “conditions”, “standards” and “measures” are in the majority ultimate supporters of the regime in Syria, who do not take the trouble even for one moment to ask if the regime they support accepts these conditions or if it has already brushed them under the carpet. Throughout the long honeymoon years with Turkey, the regime totally disregarded the “occupied Iskenderun” issues which in its literature became the Hatay governorate. The Syrian television drama moved from conjuring up images of the “heinous ottoman past of the region” to a huge subtitling machine for fallen Turkish series. At that time, these people did not declare their “departure” from the regime, but went to lengths in explaining the deep implications of the “five seas vision” launched by the Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad. As for the occupied Golan, it has held this adjective for forty five years and was not liberated by peace or war and the resistance never found a direct way there, and the fronts and cannons remained as silent as the graves. When the regime was tightly isolated as in 2003 after the fall of Baghdad or in 2005 following the Hariri assassination, negotiations for Golan were specifically requested, as a means of breaking the shackles but not for liberating the land and returning the refugees. The keys of negotiation and honour of mediation were given to the leaders of what is called today “the Americanised Ottoman Islam” as the trustees for the land, the rights and Syrian interests. Speaking about civil state, democracy, secularism, diversity and nationalism (as opposed to sectarianism), I don’t know who is more entitled to ask for them, the regime or opposition or both of them equally. Why do some of us raise them to the level of conditions and initial demands only when it comes to opposition? But when it is related to defending the regime they are included as “it would have been better if the regime did so and so”. But should the regime refrain from applying them, it remains “a forgiven sin” that doesn’t justify the world’s scramble over it, or listing a country in the contexts of “conspiracy theory”. The other side to these desperate stances are those that unreservedly express their support of the Syrian “mujahideen” strugglers and opposition, while failing to observe that among them are killers, terrorists, and conspires related to all intelligence bodies in the world, besides those who fight in word and action for the liberation of Syria and its one and unified future. You read what’s written about the opposition and you think these people live on another planet whether they do this intentionally or not. This is the other side of the coin which no longer sees in the Syrian regime except the image it paints of itself and who sometimes add some beautifying “touches” that the regime itself wouldn’t dare to add. We are facing a deadly “duo” with the Syrian issue. It is not enough to look at one side to know the reality of what’s happening in Syria. It is not in Syria’s – or anyone’s – best interest to drift away with illusions and bets. Al-Assad will not stay in Syria, his regime is leaving however long it stays. Syria after them will not be “God’s heaven on earth” as it has militias of sectarians, dark-ageists, opportunists, and affiliates of regional agendas and major power ambitions. It appears that the battle in Syria and the battle for Syria will see its fervour after the departure of the regime in a way that was not seen in the months of the regime’s “resistance” to change and fall. --- The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of Arabstoday.