In Defence of Syria

from Robin Yassin-Kassab - 20.02.2005 09:29

Syria stands accused by the US of terrorism and sabotaging peace efforts, but Syria's greatest act of terror looked very much like the US 'liberation' of Fallujah. Syria is now a force for stability and negotiated peace in the region, but that is not what the US/Israeli axis requires.

Enraged by what they perceive as the Westernising, anti-Islamic policies of the authorities, militants take control of a conservative Middle Eastern city. They impose their harsh version of sharia law on the inhabitants and launch attacks in other cities on government forces and any civilians associated with them. Religious minorities and secularists throughout the country fear for their future.

Military command is unable and perhaps unwilling to distinguish between insurgents and civilians. Besides, an example needs to be made. The city is besieged, its roads closed so nobody can escape. The historic centre and residential areas are pulverized by aerial and artillery bombardment. There is intense house to house fighting, and then clearing operations in which, it is rumoured, internationally banned weapons are used. Thousands are killed, but it is impossible to know the exact number, or exactly how they died, because journalists and relief organizations are unable to enter the city.

No, this is not a description of the Americans liberating Fallujah in 2004, although it could be. This is Hama, 1982, and the liberator is perhaps America’s next target in its war on terror: the Syrian regime.

Unfortunately for the regime, its greatest act of terror was committed long before the US and its Israeli client perceived Sunni Islamism as a threat. In fact, in those days both the US and Israel supported fundamentalists from Palestine to Afghanistan as a means of weakening their leftist or nationalist enemies. So, unlike Pakistan’s General Musharraf or the Algerian junta today, the Syrian Ba’ath was never feted for its ‘moderation.’ Not even post-9/11, when Syria has handed both intelligence and al-Qaida suspects over to America.

Syria’s insurmountable misfortune as far as Western perceptions are concerned is its proximity to Israel and its refusal thus far to surrender. Now George Bush, undeterred by the Iraqi debacle, is in threatening mood. “We must confront regimes that continue to harbour terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder,” he told Congress in his State of the Union address. “Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region.”

The war on terror’s moral righteousness is always threatened by an obvious but seldom spoken truth: the problem with the word ‘terrorist’ is that it means different things to different people. To almost everybody in the Arab world it means Israeli forces which slaughter (occupied) Palestinian civilians rather than the less well-equipped Palestinian forces which slaughter (occupying) Israeli civilians. In this context, the Syrians allow Palestinian organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad to run offices in Damascus, although their activities are limited. The whole point of suicide bombings, in any case, is that they can be organised locally and the explosives manufactured from fertilizer. Syria has no effect on Palestinian capacity to undertake attacks in Palestine or Israel.

Hizbullah, however, which benefits from Syria’s presence in Lebanon, has greater significance. This organization was born in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, an invasion by turns ignored or supported by the US and which led to tens of thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian deaths. The Shia resistance became the darling of the Muslim world when its outdated katyusha rockets and poorly armed but fiercely dedicated guerrillas succeeded in pushing the Israelis out of the occupied south in May 2000. Even more impressive was the party’s ability to establish peaceful relations between the embittered southern communities following the retreat, and to establish itself as a serious voice in Lebanese parliamentary politics.

Characterised by successive American administrations as a bloodthirsty terror gang, Hizbullah has indeed shelled northern Israeli towns in retaliation for particularly savage Israeli bombardments of Lebanese villages. It perceives this as an effort to build a deterrent capacity. Otherwise, it has struck only military targets. Almost all of its victims have been Israeli soldiers killed within Lebanese territory.

With the Shaba Farms still occupied, and with Syria’s blessing, the border war continues at low intensity. Syria’s interest in Hizbullah’s survival is simple. Without a patron and comprehensively outgunned (despite the loose talk of WMD, US and Israeli officials routinely deride Syria’s military weakness), the Lebanese resistance is Syria’s only card to pressure for an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan.

But it seems the neo-con envisioned Middle East does not allow for any Syrian cards. Or any Syria at all. Following an Israeli air strike on Syrian soil in October 2003, the first in decades, Pentagon advisor Richard Perle said, “I am happy to see the message was delivered to Syria…. And I hope it is the first of many such messages.” And now the mysterious assassination of Rafiq Hariri, immediately (if indirectly) blamed on Syria by the US and the Lebanese opposition, adds fuel to the fire.

So Syrians have reason to fear that the second term will see a concerted effort by the US, probably via Israel, to 'end' the Syrian regime. And fear they do. Ruthless as he was, President Hafez al-Assad brought stability after an extended period of domestic chaos. He built a country in which minorities feel safe, where Christians proudly wear crosses (many of Iraq’s Christians have fled to Syria since the US ‘liberation’), where you can buy a bottle of araq without being asked your religion.

As violent opposition was tamed, the regime grew gentler. When President Bashaar took over from his father he was welcomed by almost all Syrians, even regime opponents, as a guarantor of stability and as a self-proclaimed reformist. Controls on media and civil society have been loosened; many political prisoners have been released. Of course, there is much more to do. It seems that Bashaar genuinely wants to reform further, but is constrained by the chaos on his eastern and western borders, in Bush’s Iraq and Sharon’s Palestine, and its devastating effects on Syria’s economy.

As for ‘seeking to destroy chances for peace,’ Syria has repeatedly called for a Middle East free of all WMD, Arab and Israeli. And President Assad recently called upon Israel to resume peace negotiations unconditionally. In both cases, Syria was ignored.

In neo-con dreamland it is the regime which incites the people against Israel. In fact, the people and the opposition are more hostile to Zionism than the government, and this for very concrete reasons: the presence of half a million Palestinian refugees, and the water-rich Golan looming over Damascus which remains under Israeli control. (Tony Blair managed to visit Syria without once mentioning this central political issue.)

An attack on Syria would serve neither peace nor reform. It could tip the country into ethnic and sectarian conflict, and would certainly be vigorously resisted. Syrians do yearn for more freedom and prosperity. But they do not believe that the US wants to give it to them. Sadly, Syrian perspectives are drowned out by louder voices in Washington.

Robin Yassin-Kassab

 qunfuz@hotmail.com