Syria enters into the Islamic Resistance Den
President Bashar Assad never seems to miss an opportunity for chaos and division among the ranks of the Arab world. Believing he is in tune with the sentiments of Syrian and Arab masses, his short temper and immature judgments have led Syria directly to crisis after another.
At the recent Doha Summit attended by only thirteen of the twenty two Arab countries by what has been termed as the “resistance” bloc, including Iran, he declared the Arab Peace initiative as “dead” and quoted the old biblical axiom “an eye for an eye”.
This comes on the heels of a press conference in which he gave few weeks ago with the Turkish envoy in Damascus and indicated his desire to move the Syrian/Israeli peace talks from an indirect phase to direct one as the “logical” progression for the negotiation.
President Assad’s behavior portrays his insatiable appetite for acceptance by the Arab street and his lack of confidence in his legitimacy as a President.
While Egypt and Saudi Arabia was working tirelessly to end the bloodshed in Gaza, President Assad was busy undermining those efforts in his speech at the Doha Summit by inciting the rest of the Arab world to boycott Israel and “close its embassies” in Arab capitals where peace agreements have been reached.
By pushing Arab governments for a unified confrontational stance with Israel, President Assad has completed his transformation from a leader of a secularist Arab State to the champion of the Islamic resistance. His speech at the Doha Summit is a dangerous departure from his father’s secular Ba’athiest ideology and straight into the jaws of the Islamic resistance camp.
President Assad’s words at the Doha Summit have echoed word for word President Nasser’s speech at the Egyptian Parliament after the combined defeat of the Arab world in 1967 at the hands of Israel and its allies. When the UN proposed recognition of Israel by Egypt for the return of the newly occupied Sinai, President Nasser answered “What is taken by force will not be return but by force”. History proved Nasser wrong.
It is unclear what will happen to Syria’s future peace talks with Israel and its ailing economy. If anything President Assad has continued to alienate the leading Arab neighbors and obstruct his own efforts for better relations with the West.
With the new Obama administration coming on board in a few days, Secretary of State designate Hilary Clinton will have to make more than a convincing argument for her administration why the U.S should open a dialogue with Syria. This traumatic and extremist shift in Syria’s political vision and strategy will increasingly become the stumbling block on the road to Syria’s much anticipated behavioral change by Western capitals. In re-opening its diplomatic relations and dialogue with Syria last year, France’s goodwill gesture will no doubt face its first logjam in the next few months.
In his speech at the Doha Summit, President Assad tried in vain to explain the difference between peace and defeatism, resistance and terrorism, as he stated “Here is the difference between resistance and terrorism, the former is Arab and the latter is Israeli, the former wants peace and the latter wants war, the former was forced to fight for its rights and the latter was built on killing and aggressing against others”, he goes on to explain Syria’s contradictory position of peace and resistance as the same choice for its strategy by adding the following question “How could one wishing to achieve peace not support the resistance? It is the difference between peace and defeatism, peace without resistance with a criminal enemy will inevitably lead to defeatism”. With this schizophrenic logic Syria continues to whip the Arab street with the frenzy of war rhetoric and continues to suffer the consequences of its international and regional isolation.
Syria’s inability to wage war except through proxy clients the likes of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad has been the trademark of the country since 1973 and even further in time. Its crippled military readiness and economic standings have incapacitated the country’s ability to defend itself evident by the repeated assaults of the Israeli Air forces on its territory in the past few years. Yet, we seem to hear the same old slogans emanating from the young and inexperienced President of Syria.
At the recent Doha Summit attended by only thirteen of the twenty two Arab countries by what has been termed as the “resistance” bloc, including Iran, he declared the Arab Peace initiative as “dead” and quoted the old biblical axiom “an eye for an eye”.
This comes on the heels of a press conference in which he gave few weeks ago with the Turkish envoy in Damascus and indicated his desire to move the Syrian/Israeli peace talks from an indirect phase to direct one as the “logical” progression for the negotiation.
President Assad’s behavior portrays his insatiable appetite for acceptance by the Arab street and his lack of confidence in his legitimacy as a President.
While Egypt and Saudi Arabia was working tirelessly to end the bloodshed in Gaza, President Assad was busy undermining those efforts in his speech at the Doha Summit by inciting the rest of the Arab world to boycott Israel and “close its embassies” in Arab capitals where peace agreements have been reached.
By pushing Arab governments for a unified confrontational stance with Israel, President Assad has completed his transformation from a leader of a secularist Arab State to the champion of the Islamic resistance. His speech at the Doha Summit is a dangerous departure from his father’s secular Ba’athiest ideology and straight into the jaws of the Islamic resistance camp.
President Assad’s words at the Doha Summit have echoed word for word President Nasser’s speech at the Egyptian Parliament after the combined defeat of the Arab world in 1967 at the hands of Israel and its allies. When the UN proposed recognition of Israel by Egypt for the return of the newly occupied Sinai, President Nasser answered “What is taken by force will not be return but by force”. History proved Nasser wrong.
It is unclear what will happen to Syria’s future peace talks with Israel and its ailing economy. If anything President Assad has continued to alienate the leading Arab neighbors and obstruct his own efforts for better relations with the West.
With the new Obama administration coming on board in a few days, Secretary of State designate Hilary Clinton will have to make more than a convincing argument for her administration why the U.S should open a dialogue with Syria. This traumatic and extremist shift in Syria’s political vision and strategy will increasingly become the stumbling block on the road to Syria’s much anticipated behavioral change by Western capitals. In re-opening its diplomatic relations and dialogue with Syria last year, France’s goodwill gesture will no doubt face its first logjam in the next few months.
In his speech at the Doha Summit, President Assad tried in vain to explain the difference between peace and defeatism, resistance and terrorism, as he stated “Here is the difference between resistance and terrorism, the former is Arab and the latter is Israeli, the former wants peace and the latter wants war, the former was forced to fight for its rights and the latter was built on killing and aggressing against others”, he goes on to explain Syria’s contradictory position of peace and resistance as the same choice for its strategy by adding the following question “How could one wishing to achieve peace not support the resistance? It is the difference between peace and defeatism, peace without resistance with a criminal enemy will inevitably lead to defeatism”. With this schizophrenic logic Syria continues to whip the Arab street with the frenzy of war rhetoric and continues to suffer the consequences of its international and regional isolation.
Syria’s inability to wage war except through proxy clients the likes of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad has been the trademark of the country since 1973 and even further in time. Its crippled military readiness and economic standings have incapacitated the country’s ability to defend itself evident by the repeated assaults of the Israeli Air forces on its territory in the past few years. Yet, we seem to hear the same old slogans emanating from the young and inexperienced President of Syria.
Leaders are born in crisis and Gaza have clearly shown the schism the Arab world is suffering from, those advocating cool heads and pragmatism evident by the Sharm El-Sheikh international summit led by Egypt and attended by Arabs, the UN, and world leaders, and those who continue on the path of war and resistance at the Doha Summit, undermining peace and stability in the region. Syria have come a full circle under the leadership of the new lion of Damascus, but this time the lion have entered the Coliseum of fundamentalist Islamic resistance where raging crowds are calling for blood. Will he come out unscathed? We will only have to wait and see.
تعليقات
When was that exactly? Was it when Egypt refused to let aid pass its border? Was it when it refused a Qatari plane to even LAND to donate aid? Was it when it blocked a UN General Assembly resolution? Was it when it blocked the Arab League from meeting in the first week of the massacre?
Egypt and Syria share one thing in common - neither had the power to end the killing. But at least Bashar reflected the views of his people. 60 million Egyptians want to kill Mubarak, that's the difference.
Thank you for your comment. The truth is you just proved my point is exactly.
The issue is not aid to the Palestinians in Gaza, I never argued that point, nor would I dare to do so.
As for Egypt obstruction at the UN for a resolution which you mentioned, I don’t believe you can characterize it as an obstruction; others would call it constructive approach.
As for blocking the Arab League from meeting the first week, you overly simplify the actual events and seem to forget the effectiveness of such meetings on the actual events on the ground in terms of stopping the attack on Gaza.
Now let’s go back to the Sharm Al-Sheikh international summit attended by six top major European head of States, including President Mahmud Abbas and other Arab leader and U.N. General Secretary Ban Ki Moon. This played a major part in the unilateral cessation of hostilities by Israel.
All this happened ‘cause of the leadership of President Mubarak, while President Assad was calling for support for Hamas, “boycotting” Israel and “closing its embassies” at Arab Capitals.
You barometer for judging leaders effectiveness by reflecting the views of the masses of their people is ill conceived, and is exactly what I’m referring to in my article. True leaders are the ones who make tough decisions in times of crisis; most often those decisions are NOT in tune with their people’s wish, that is the true measure of leadership and that is how the late President Anwar Sadat got his Sinai back, yet Syria still without its Golan Heights.
Cheers
Bashar
Really? Really? You REALLY think that Israel said, oooooh, we better stop now Egypt is holding a meeting. My friend, you are deluding yourself. Israel ignored the UN Security Council resolution, and even kept bombing when Ban Ki-moon was IN Jerusalem.
It's a shame that you can't accept the cowardess of Egypt - the country which couldn't even bring themselves to close the Israeli embassy in Cairo. Or Mahmoud Abbas boycotting the Doha summit. Don't forget, at the summit, the Qatari leader said Abbas told him he wanted to come, but he would be killed by his allies if he did.