Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Within the Arab Left, Contradictions Emerge Over Syria

Inter Press Services

Though the Arab Spring has heralded newfound hope and optimism across the Middle East, the mood has darkened considerably as entrenched governments have fought back viciously against democratic opposition.

The relatively quick collapse of the governments in Tunisia and Egypt has given way to protracted struggle – along with its many complications – in Syria, Bahrain and Libya. Nowhere has this been demonstrated more clearly than in Syria, where the demand for democratisation has become deeply tangled with geopolitical dynamics, overlapping alliances, and clashing political ideologies.

The situation in Syria has developed differently than the revolutions that swept its neighbours. As one of the members of the so-called Axis of Resistance, Syria has evaded the accusations of subservience to foreign powers that plagued the old guard of Egypt, Bahrain, and elsewhere.

More importantly, Syria sits between Lebanon and Iraq, states still struggling to overcome their recent spasms of sectarian violence and instability. Syrians have also watched warily as the revolutions in Libya and Bahrain have produced large-scale violence, continued instability, and foreign military interventions.

For these reasons, along with the Assad regime's brutal month-long crackdown, the vast majority of Syrians have stayed at home, many quietly seething at the government, but unwilling to publicly embrace the opposition.

Nowhere has this gap between disdain for the government and support for the opposition been more clear than in the circles of the Arab Left – near-unanimous in their animosity towards Bashar Al-Assad, but deeply conflicted about the nature, substance, and future of the burgeoning opposition movement.

As the opposition scrambles and regroups in the face of the Syrian government's recent offensive, various influential leftists have struggled to wed their support for popular uprising with their concerns of manipulation by Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States.

A small but vocal minority have categorically rejected the current opposition, claiming that disorder in Syria only serves to embolden right-wing Islamist movements that will consequently tilt the balance of power toward the camps of Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States.

Some have complained that while the revolutions of Egypt and Tunisia heralded significant defeats for the traditional enemies of the Arab Left, the implications of a power vacuum in Syria are significantly more muddied, and may well further destabilise its already fragile neighbours.

Prominent Syrian dissident Michel Kilo, in a recent article in the leftist Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, warns that sectarian conflict will "move society backwards", undermining state, society, and national unity "for God knows how long". Kilo is joined by a few others who agree that the total collapse of the regime, at this particular juncture, may not be beneficial to the aims and goals of the left.

Generally speaking, these comments have invited a flurry of opposition. Rime Allaf, an associate at Chatham House, has pointed out that the "other regimes [are] seemingly throwing their weight behind the Syrian regime, fearful of the reach of this inconvenient Arab spring."

A number of commentators have likewise noted that those who worry that the demonstrations will empower their traditional enemies – Israel and Saudi Arabia – find themselves in the same camp as a number of Israeli and Saudi policymakers, who fear precisely the opposite. Though Israeli officials have largely remained silent on the issue of Syria, many suspect the Israeli government of supporting the Syrian regime, in word if not in deed.

"You want to work with the devil you know," Moshe Maoz, a former Israeli government advisor, said to the Los Angeles Times in March.

Others have been supportive of the opposition, but more cautious, including well-known analyst As'ad Abu-Khalil , the proprietor of the Angry Arab News Service blog. Abu-Khalil has argued on numerous occasions that the "Saudi" and "Western" tendencies of the opposition were counterproductive and dangerous, and must be considered separately from the "majority" of protesters who remain free of such influence.

Abu-Khalil has been particularly tough on expat Syrians, who some say have played a pivotal role in organising the protests and disseminating information. He points to examples such as Farid Ghadry, leader of the "Reform Party of Syria", who left Syria at the age of 10 and maintains that Israelis should be allowed to stay in the Golan Heights, a position that is highly unpopular with mainstream Syrians.

Bassad Haddad, a well-respected specialist on Syrian politics and co- founder of the website Jadaliyya, finds the entire debate frustrating.

"The whole conversation is not productive, because this is not a conversation of the Left, but a conversation between people who believe in conspiracy theories…and those who see [the situation in Syria] as it is," he said in a recent interview with IPS.

Though Haddad admits that "I have friends who don't like what I'm saying," he stands strongly behind the consideration that "there are probably infiltrators, but they're a minority. What's going on in Syria is not the result of infiltrators, but 14 years of people living under oppression…and in the end the Syrian regime is killing its own people. That's where the buck stops for any self-respecting leftist."

"We must be able to critique the regime … without making the critique amenable to be abused by the enemies of resistance anywhere," he said, noting that the balance between the two positions can be a difficult road to travel.

Haddad warns that for some, "the principle at heart here is being abandoned for politics," accusing opponents of the opposition of acting as "apologists for authoritarianism" simply because they share some of the same enemies of the Syrian regime.

As the debate rages, the government's crackdown has continued unabated, shielded by an increasingly effective media blackout, leaving all sides waiting anxiously to see if their worst fears will come true.

Samer Araabi writes for the Inter Press Service and is a contributor to Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Erik Prince, former CEO of the mercenary group Blackwater, continues to sell security services around the world as controversies over his work—including in China and the Middle East, and his alleged involvement in collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia—grow.


Gina Haspel is the first woman to hold the position of director of the CIA, winning her confirmation despite her history of involvement in torture during the Iraq War.


Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) is a pressure group founded in early 2019 that serves as a watchdog and enforcer of Israel’s reputation in the Democratic Party.


Richard Grenell is the U.S. ambassador to Germany for the Donald Trump administration, known for his brusque and confrontational style.


Zalmay Khalilzad is Donald Trump’s special representative to the Afghan peace process, having previously served as ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq under George W. Bush.


Robert Joseph played a key role in manipulating U.S. intelligence to support the invasion of Iraq and today is a lobbyist for the MEK.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Senate on Wednesday passed a measure mandating the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Saudi/UAE-led war against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The vote marks the first time since the War Powers Act of 1973 became law that both chambers of Congress have directed the president to withdraw American forces from a conflict.


The Trump administration’s failed “maximum pressure” approach to Iran and North Korea begs the question what the US president’s true objectives are and what options he is left with should the policy ultimately fail.


In the United States, it’s possible to debate any and every policy, domestic and foreign, except for unquestioning support for Israel. That, apparently, is Ilhan Omar’s chief sin.


While Michael Cohen mesmerized the House of Representatives and President Trump resumed his love affair with North Korea’s Kim Jong, one of the most dangerous state-to-state confrontations, centering in Kashmir, began to spiral out of control.


The Trump administration’s irresponsible withdrawal from the landmark Iran nuclear agreement undermined Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and emboldened hardliners who accused him of having been deceived by Washington while negotiating the agreement. However, the Iranian government could use the shock of Zarif’s resignation to push back against hardliners and take charge of both the domestic and foreign affairs of the country while Iran’s foreign opponents should consider the risks of destabilizing the government under the current critical situation.


Europe can play an important role in rebuilding confidence in the non-proliferation regime in the wake of the demise of the INF treaty, including by making it clear to the Trump administration that it wants the United States to refrain from deploying INF-banned missiles in Europe and to consider a NATO-Russian joint declaration on non-first deployment.


The decline in Israel’s appeal to Democrats is directly related to the wider awareness of the country’s increasingly authoritarian nature, its treatment of Palestinians, and its reluctance to take substantive steps toward peace. Pro-Israel liberals face a fundamental paradox trying to reconcile Israel’s illiberalism with their political values.


RightWeb
share