Political Opinion written by Mr. Khaddam for Zanobia Channel
The purpose of the meeting that took place in Doha last Friday was not to protect the Palestinian people and stop the savage aggression on Gaza, which was bleeding. If it were so, the participants would have waited a few days to come out with a unified Arab stance that provides protection, support, and assistance to the Palestinian people, making decisions and taking actions to stop the savage aggression and protect the Palestinian people.
Expressing anger for Gaza and for the Palestinian people does not involve adopting the policy of axes, cementing Arab division, and, more dangerously, using the Palestinian cause as a means to achieve Arab division at a time when the Palestinian issue needs Arab unity and solidarity.
We heard fiery speeches and slogans as if their authors had mobilized their armies to confront aggression and liberate Palestine and the Golan Heights.
One of the goals of the meeting is to include the Arab public opinion, which emerged in the aftermath of the aggression, demanding practical measures and opening fronts to save the Palestinian people.
Anyone who listened to Bashar al-Assad’s speech would think that the Syrian forces are on the doors of the Golan Heights to liberate it and cleanse the shame of the June 1967 defeat, saving the Palestinian people who are bleeding due to the savage aggression.
The Syrian people took to the streets in all their cities and countryside, calling for opening the Golan front in support of the injured Palestinian brothers. Syrians expected the president of the regime, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Armed Forces, to lead these forces. However, that did not happen. The response to the Syrian masses was replaced by launching a series of positions, slogans, and accusations, attempting to mislead the Syrian public opinion first and the Arab opinion second, presenting itself to the new American administration as the one in charge in the region. He expressed readiness to cooperate with the new U.S. president, urging him to expedite action for peace at a time when he announced in the Doha meeting burying the peace process and rejecting the Arab initiative.
When did Bashar al-Assad care about the Palestinian cause? Wasn’t he seeking a Syrian-Israeli solution, excluding the Palestinian and Lebanese tracks?
Didn’t he focus in his direct and indirect negotiations and communications with the Israelis on the bilateral issue, leaving the Palestinians to negotiate for peace on their own?
In early May 2003, the U.S. Secretary of State visited Damascus, and in a meeting with the regime’s president, he presented a set of demands, including the expulsion of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command from Syria, and preventing Palestinians from activities in Syria. What did Bashar al-Assad do at that time? Didn’t he instruct his agencies to inform Palestinian organizations to close their offices and halt all their media activities?
Didn’t he say in party meetings that he would ask President Mubarak to take care of the Palestinian issue because Egypt has more experience with it, and he would focus his attention on the Golan Heights?
If he is keen on the Palestinians and the Palestinian cause and alleviating their suffering, why did he refuse the entry of Palestinian families displaced from Iraq, who are still in camps on the Syrian-Iraqi border?
Simply put, the Palestinian cause is not his cause. It is a card he uses to serve his interests and is the most influential card in shaping public opinion and misleading it about the actions of this regime that harm the Syrian people and the Palestinian cause.
And the big question: Why did he support Hezbollah in Lebanon against Israel and close the doors to the Golan Heights for resistance against the occupation?
If the pretext was the Separation of Forces Agreement, the agreement did not include a provision prohibiting resistance activities. Negotiations had stopped for more than two weeks until the Israelis accepted the Syrian point of view through the mediation of the then U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.
The issue is not about what is happening in Palestine but what is happening in the International Investigation Committee and what will happen in the International Court regarding the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister, Mr. Rafik Hariri.
After assuming power until the issuance of Resolution 1951 following the extension of the term of the former Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and Security Council resolutions on the matter, Syrian-Iranian relations were initially based on cooperation, grounded in mutual interests. However, they later transformed into an alliance, with Bashar al-Assad linking Syria to Iran’s regional strategy. This formed an axis extending from Tehran, encompassing Iran’s allies in Iraq, the Syrian regime, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian movements of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
What the Syrian regime said in the Doha meeting about Israel obstructing peace talks since the Madrid Conference until now is correct because Israel has its own strategy that contradicts the requirements and commitments of peace. It has expansionist and aggressive goals. However, the question is, what did the regime do to confront this situation, and what preparations were made to liberate the Golan Heights and support the Palestinian cause?
What is the alternative to confront Israel’s aggressive strategy? Is it through slogans, weakening national unity, monopolizing power, oppression, and despotism? Is it through impoverishing the people and encouraging corruption? Is it through the circle of corrupt individuals surrounding him leading the liberation process? Is it through arresting advocates of freedom and democracy? Or through policies that led to the spread of hunger and poverty and a decline in living standards? Is it achieved by raising generations chanting “Assad forever”? These are questions raised by citizens as they see the regime trying to imitate the late President Gamal Abdel Nasser when he said, “What is taken by force can only be regained by force.” So, what did Bashar al-Assad do to provide this force?
Is it enough for him to deceive himself and attempt to mislead public opinion by launching slogans? We listened to the speech of the Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and we were led to believe that Iran made a historic decision to mobilize its forces on the Syrian front, as it did in June 1982 following Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. Iran sent forces to Syria and Lebanon at that time, even though it was in a war with Iraq and did not possess the military arsenal it has today, as seen in the media.
Is the invasion of Lebanon less dangerous than the invasion of Gaza?
Gaza has supported the Palestinian cause since the early days of the revolution, providing assistance to some Palestinian factions and later forming alliances with Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
The big question is whether the Israeli aggression and the invasion of Gaza serve the strategy of the Iranian-Syrian-Qatari axis by consolidating division in both the Arab and Palestinian arenas.
If one of the goals of the Iranian-Syrian-Qatari axis is to protect the Palestinian people, is this achieved by encouraging Palestinian division, which has led to an armed conflict between Fatah and Hamas, a coup in Gaza, and the separation of Gaza from the West Bank?
As for the purpose of these slogans and accusations, to harness the inflamed emotions of the Arab public and deepen divisions in the Arab arena, the axis has a corner of the Arab street and directs its dialogue with the international community in general and the United States in particular, as it controls the Arab scene.
How can we imagine a situation where Arab disputes intensify, and this situation is capable of protecting Arab rights, supporting the Palestinian cause, and backing the Palestinian people?
It is noteworthy that some political forces in the Arab arena have not realized that the Syrian regime is incapable of meeting their requirements due to the nature of the regime, its behavior, and its structure. They made a mistake by calling on the regime to achieve national unity and open Syria’s doors to those who want resistance, as if they do not know the nature of this regime and have not experienced its harm over many years.
We believe that a new dawn will soon appear in Syria, a liberated Syria free from tyranny, oppression, injustice, corruption, and governed by a democratic system that promotes national unity. This is the hopeful Syria for a bright future for both Syria and the Arab nation.