Syria and the gray areas in the situation and analysis

Ideas, principles and positions are not always subject to rigid approaches and theories on a black-and-white basis. Rather, there are exceptions, compromises, balances and grey areas. This depends on the complexity of the issues and the level of challenges facing one party or another.

This is not an invention of a strange understanding, nor is it a new matter, and its space does not only frame the world of politics, but we live it as an experience and reality time and time again in the affairs of our private lives, and yet we do not consider it a departure from value systems, as much as they are necessary and exceptional balances and adjustments in their depths. A problem arises when some claim that they are always and forever consistent intellectually, in principle, and in their positions, and seek to judge others based on their alleged consistency, even though it only exists in their imagination or their claims.

In fact, such a claim is nothing but a bias towards one’s own interests, and an attempt to justify what is difficult to justify on moral grounds. The more difficult problem is those who deny the existence of relativity in positions, or those who are unable to perceive this fact according to changing circumstances, data and contexts. Hence, they end up as victims, or as the cause of victims, or in limiting the ability of those in a position of responsibility and decision-making to show the flexibility required to deal with fundamental, and perhaps even existential, challenges.

The reason for the previous introduction is the developments that Syria has been witnessing for the past ten days, that is, since the Syrian opposition factions launched the “Deterrence of Aggression” operation against the regime forces and the Iranian militias allied with it. Since November 27, the opposition factions have been able to liberate what remained of Idlib Governorate, most of which was under their control, then took control of the city of Aleppo and large areas of the governorate, and are currently besieging the city of Hama, and may soon be on their way to Homs.

Because these developments coincide with the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, and the escalation between Israel and the Iranian axis in the region, opinions and positions on what is happening in Syria have varied, between supporters, skeptics and opponents. In fact, the pace of verbal clashes and accusations of treason has increased between supporters of Iran and its axis, including the Syrian regime, and those who see the priority in strengthening the axis involved in fighting Israel and its Western alliance in the region, at the heart of which is Iran and its arms.

This article does not aim to try to understand (and explain) the background of the developments taking place in Syria, as much has been said and written about that. What this article seeks to do is to emphasize that positions and entrenchments can change from one context to another, in a way that takes into account the identity of the conflicting parties and the ground of the conflict. Such a change does not fall under the category of utilitarianism and immorality, although we cannot completely deny pragmatism here.

Those who deny the existence of such a gray and relative area, or who reject it, are the ones who create tension, tension, and divisions among those who are supposed to be on the same side, even when the arenas are multiple and the challenges and data differ.

To be more clear, it is no secret that there is a rift between some Syrians and their supporters, and between some Palestinians and their supporters, over the priority of hostility, whether towards Iran and its tools in the region or towards Israel? These Syrians and others have often criticized some Palestinians and those who support their position for requesting and receiving support from Iran and Hezbollah. In fact, these people considered the mutual bombing between Iran and Israel to be nothing more than a farce.

When Israel launched a devastating war on Lebanon and Hezbollah, many of them did not hesitate to gloat over the painful blows Hezbollah received, and they did not hesitate to attack anyone who showed sympathy for the party in its war against Israel, which is a threat to the entire region.

This party was, and still is, turning a blind eye to the brutal genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, and what Israel did in Lebanon, and they want the Palestinian victim to turn against the only party that stands with them, at a time when the Arabs, Muslims and the world have thrown them into the same trap! Now, the situation has been reversed; when the Syrian opposition launched its attack on the forces of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the voices of some who declare that the compass of hostility should be directed towards Israel only have been raised.

Their voices rose in condemnation and denunciation, saying that this would divert the compass from what is happening in Gaza and that it would be a conspiracy against one of the sides of the "Axis of Resistance", i.e. Syria. They did not stop there, but considered the matter an Israeli-American conspiracy, with the aim of undermining the Assad regime and cutting off the routes of supplying Iranian weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon via Syria. Let alone the American encirclement of Russia in Syria in order to further drain it in Ukraine. This party repeats these statements, regardless of the extent of the truth of some of them, ignoring the truth of the hideous crimes of the Assad regime, Iranian militias and Russian forces in Syria against the Syrian people for 14 years.

What we must all understand is that both the Palestinian and Syrian peoples are victims. The same applies to the Lebanese, Iraqis and Yemenis. Israel is a wicked enemy and a predatory beast that does not wish us, the Arabs, any good. It is the source of many of our problems in the region. On the other hand, Iran is neither an innocent angel nor a docile lamb. It and its proxies have committed (and continue to commit) many heinous crimes against some of our Arab peoples. However, our challenges as Arabs are multiple and complex in the absence of a strong official Arab backer. As such, some of us are forced to ally with Iran against Israel, but this should never turn into acquiescence and submission to its crimes in Syria.

The same applies to Hezbollah. On the other hand, denying the Syrians’ right to get rid of a dictator and the sectarian militias that support him in crushing them on the pretext that this would drain Iran and Hezbollah at a time when they represent an essential part of the steadfastness front against Israel is difficult to justify. If there were abstraction, it would be possible to say so, but abstraction is absent here, especially since Iran and Hezbollah do not help in focusing hostility on Israel, but rather are a primary source of confusion and ambiguity in this regard.

Many stand with Iran and Hezbollah in the trenches of fighting against Israel, but they stand with the Syrian people against Iran and Hezbollah in their support of the Bashar al-Assad regime. More important than this and that, we must understand and accept the relativity and grayness between the different parties. Those who are directly confronted with Israel should not be expected to declare hostility to Hezbollah and Iran, and those who are directly confronted with the latter two parties should realize that Israel is their eternal enemy.

(New Arab)