The great Palestinian philosopher and former MK Azmi Bishara on the Syrian revolution.
1) Let’s suppose that impoverishment of the people and the suppression of their freedoms are marginal when placed in the context of a grander goal, such as defending the homeland. That would only make sense, however, during limited periods of time, such as during wars. Anyway, such claims do not justify the way in which the people have to share out the misery between them, while the rulers enjoy the riches. Nor does such sloganeering justify the institutionalized, systematic denial of the rights of their people. There is no justification for the tyranny and corruption of the rulers, and their appropriation of the fruits of the masses’ labour. Trying to exploit a cause held dearly by both the people and the regime to achieve this is the beginning of demagoguery, and it is a tool used solely to preserve the existence of the corrupt, tyrannical regime. None of this, of course, takes away from the righteousness of the cause being exploited, but it does serve to bestow legitimacy on an illegitimate regime. Rebellion against this tyranny will necessarily place the removal of that regime as its first target, but the sanctity of the just causes which the regime exploits must also be preserved. This applies when the question comes to US plans to dominate our region, seeking to design the policies of Arab states with Israeli interests at heart, as well as the question of Palestine and the duty to resist the occupation at every turn.
2) No people, anywhere in the world, would accept torture, false imprisonment, financial corruption and the muzzling of the media for generation after generation, regardless of the justification. Nor does anybody to have the right that those being persecuted remain quiet for the sake of grander concerns, without hopes for a change, all to placate commentators who seem to think that the suffering of the people is secondary to the “Central Question”, especially as all the evidence that no progress on that same “Central Question” in the first place.
3) Nobody has the right to just claim to have “understood” the people’s pain and the righteousness of their claims, and then ask those people to simply stay on the sidelines while the leaders undertake some reforms. No human likes being shot at and bombed, but you cannot expect that people who get shot at while protesting peacefully to take it sitting down. If you cannot compel the regime to deal peacefully with peaceful protests, then [any demands that the rebellion end] are demands that the people accept that they should be killed, that their losses for the revolution thus far have been in vain.
4) History will not be kind to the Syrian regime for the way it ordered soldiers to fire on peaceful protestors. Those peaceful protests had been the regime’s greatest fear, and so they worked to quell them in the cradle.
5) It seems inevitable that, if you are being bombed, driven from your home and your possessions looted, that you will reach out to anybody who stretches his hand out to you. Those who abandoned the revolutionaries at their time of need have no right to lecture them on who their sources of support are, especially if nobody is able to persuade the regime to carry out any kind of meaningful process of reform towards democracy, or even to hand over power gradually.
6) There is no fault in the people seeking their own dignity and freedom; there is no sin for those youth who have taken up arms in the face of the regime’s barbarity. The only culprit here is the regime. Writing off the earliest protests as a foreign conspiracy, and dismissing Arab diplomatic moves for a gradual transfer of power—such as the now seemingly fanciful August, 2011 plan for a National Unity Government which would usher in Presidential elections in 2014, and a January, 2012 plan for power to be handed over to the Vice-President –this regime refused them all. None of these proposals ever sought to undo Syria’s army, or to undermine the army’s morale.
7) The duty of the revolution’s leadership and the political opposition at this point is to remain vigilant with regards to those powers which are supporting their efforts, and the political ends for which they do this. It falls on this revolutionary leadership to preserve the sovereignty and identity of Syria, preventing foreign support for their revolution from turning into a bridgehead for those foreign powers’ ulterior plans.
8) In spite of all of the above, I can understand the confusion and anguish felt by a wide number of Arab patriots about the events presently unfolding in Syria. It is not only the anguish shared by those who are shocked by the fate of large swathes of this part of the Arab homeland, at the way the regime has chosen to go with the Samson option, but rather a more nuanced, political anguish. Looking at those states which presently support the Syrian revolution, or at least claim to, one can see countries which have never been democratic, and have in fact stood in the way of all of the other Arab revolutions. Doubtlessly, these states are doing so for an entirely different set of reasons: Syria’s foreign policy and the country’s long-standing support for the resistance movements in Palestine and Lebanon. The use of sectarianism to fan the flames of the revolution are also here, deeply troubling: in our part of the world, sectarianism is not only disgusting, it is deadly. Yet no matter how anguished and confused an outside observer feels on these issues, anguish and confusion cannot be the policy of the Syrian people, and the Syrian revolution. The Syrian people are not an outside observer, they must choose between either moving forward, or falling back and having to deal with an emboldened, despicable new set of thugs. The Syrian people cannot afford to fret over the identity of those supporting their revolution, their only worries are about the limited number of those supporters, and the limited, cautious nature of that support.
9) A truly patriotic intellectual committed to democratic values must never shirk from explaining the dangers of a potential sectarianism, making clear what the real components of a democratic state based on citizenship and social justice are, on the need to avoid replacing one form of tyranny with another. Nor must we forget the historic role played by Syria in the Palestinian cause and in the wider Arab sphere. Yet this enthusiasm must be based, first and foremost, on concern and support for the Syrian people, and a defense of their revolution against tyranny. Singing the praises of Assad’s regime is an unforgivable sin, and will only serve to discredit the causes for which, ostensibly, this support for the Syrian regime is built.
10) As far as the Syrian people are concerned, no cause can be more sacred than the defense of the life of their children; no cause, for them, can be more urgent than the need to topple the Assad regime and replace it with the democratic government which they deserve.
By OMAR ADAM SAYFO
Published: August 16, 2012
IN the Syrian town my family comes from, every afternoon during the holy month of Ramadan the streets were jammed with people. They were rushing home not only to escape the heat and to prepare the iftar, the evening meal that breaks the fast, but also to catch the latest episodes of their favorite soap operas — the musalsals.
This year’s Ramadan is different. In the midst of a brutal civil war, Syrians are getting more than enough drama from real life. At the same time, Syrian production companies have shelved new shows; investors with ties to President Bashar al-Assad’s government have found their bank accounts frozen; and viewers throughout the Arab world have called for a boycott of Syrian satellite channels. A tax break issued by the government has failed to revive the industry.
While the outcome of the fighting is uncertain, one thing seems clear: in losing the soap opera, the Syrian government has lost one of its most powerful means of spreading ideas and political messages, both within and beyond the country’s borders.
Syrian soap operas took off in the ’90s, when satellite-television access increased across the Arab world, and were watched by tens of millions of people from Morocco to the Persian Gulf. The most successful production companies were always affiliated with the regime and toed the line of government censorship. But in the new millennium, following the second Palestinian intifada, the attacks of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, Syrian soap operas became more explicitly aligned with the Assad government’s Baathist — or Pan-Arab — ideology. They were increasingly set in the distant past, featuring Arab heroes and glorious wars.
The most prominent of these was a musalsal on the life of Sultan Saladin, the 12th-century defeater of the Crusaders and liberator of Jerusalem. The plot presented Saladin as the ultimate Arab hero, without mentioning his Kurdish origins, and the dialogue was stuffed with Baathist propaganda arguing for the “unity of the Arabs.” Even the most naïve viewer could not fail to associate the Crusaders with the Israelis and Americans or Sa’war — the corrupt Egyptian leader — with President Hosni Mubarak.
As the region’s politics changed, so, too, did Syria’s soap operas. Historical dramas from the ’90s, like “Damascene Days,” showed Arab patriots struggling against Ottoman oppression. But in the series written after the 2003-4 détente between Turkey and Syria, the foes were no longer the Turks but European colonialists. One of the most popular soap operas ever, “Bab al-Hara” or “The Neighborhood’s Gate,” recounts the adventures of the inhabitants of an old Damascus neighborhood who, regardless of their sectarian backgrounds, were united in their opposition to the French.
It may have been propaganda, but for a while, it worked. We, too, regardless of whether we were Christian or Druse, members of the Sunni majority or Alawites like the ruling Assads, cheered Mutaz, the mustachioed tough guy who confronted the chicken-hearted French soldiers; we celebrated the heroism of Um Joseph, the Christian woman who protected the Muslim neighborhood; and we mourned when Abu Issam, the beloved barber and doctor, passed away (or was killed off because of a controversy between the actor and director).
But after this year’s bloody crackdown, anti-sectarian slogans are simply no longer credible. The strength of Syrian drama turned into its weakness.
While there are few soap operas left on television, their stars continue to play a role in Syrian politics. After the authorities assaulted Dara’a in March 2011, hundreds of actors and writers signed the so-called Milk Petition, condemning the crackdown and requesting aid for the region’s children. In response, more than 20 production companies issued a notice accusing the signers of treachery and announcing that they would never work again. If the war goes the other way, the loyalist actors — those who rushed to defend the regime, appearing on talk shows to condemn terrorist groups and foreign conspiracies — will have an equally hard time finding their way back to the screen.
Perhaps the greatest theatrical blow to the Assad government and its myth of a unified Syria came last fall, when Jamal Suleiman, an Alawite actor and the son-in-law of a former minister of information, failed to return from a trip abroad. Just 10 years earlier, he played the role of Saladin, liberator of Jerusalem.
All of these stars and their shows were once tools of the regime, and thankfully they are no longer. But when this war is over, we should remember that the musalsals were also a source of pride for the Syrian people, a homegrown popular art form that once brought all of us together. The rest of the Arab world will not mourn them much; popular Turkish soap operas have already stepped in to fill the gap. But in the hot afternoons of Ramadans to come, in Syria, even the staunchest opponents of the Assads will miss the musalsals.
Omar Adam Sayfo is a researcher in the Netherlands specializing in Arab media.
bandannie : the debate is on concerning justice and/or retribution
As a follow up to this previous post, this answer from mgb
“Antoine and Mundas,
“why do you find physical abuse against regime soldiers and shabbiha …disturbing ?” Because the revolutionaries (FSA et al) are supposed to be the good guys, and the good guys don’t just do what their oppressors have been doing to them, just because they can. The Syrian people have been demanding justice, dignity, the rule of law, and due process. Is torturing prisoners just and dignified; is that how the rule of law due process work?
Has anyone conducted a proper investigation to find out if the captives were participating in the attacks against their fellow country folk willingly and gladly or under coercion and the threat of being shot in the back? What could I or you or any beni-Adam do if one were a conscript or even an opposition fighter or sympathizer who was caught by the regime thugs and told to fight with them, that I’m being watched and any wrong moves and I’d get a bullet in the back of the head?
As to bombing regime propaganda outlets, I think it is imperative that the FSA, SNC and all other resistance groups issue a loud and clear warning to every person that works in such establishments (make it by direct broadcast and using the specific organization’s name) that their names have been collected and their conduct, words and actions, is being closely watched and that once the regime has fallen they will have to account for what they have done and face the consequences their actions and words.
Remember what happened to Nazi collaborators in France? And if there are people who are hell-bent on carrying out suicide missions wouldn’t the Russian ships carrying arms and munitions to the regime be a much more suitable target? – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
RE foreign aid to refugees, the Australian govt. as well as the French and Canadian (I think the US too, no?) are doing/giving something, maybe not as much as we’d like, but BTN, I say:
http://www.ausaid.gov.au/HotTopics/Pages/Display.aspx?QID=752
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/08/11/baird-syria-refugee.html
August 16, 2012 § 1 Comment
On May 25, when regime militias entered the town of Houla and carried out a gruesome massacre killing 108, including 49 children, something very strange happened. Despite the fact that Channel 4 had entered the town the very next day and collected on-camera testimonies from survivors, Stalinist outfits like MediaLens, media watchdogs like FAIR, and some left luminaries, including our friend Tariq Ali, started blaming the victims. There is no reason why official stories shouldn’t be doubted, but given the heinous nature of the crime, one would’ve thought they’d be careful with regard to their evidence.
As it happened, all of them were relying on a single article appearing in a German publication, written by an author who never visited Houla or met a survivor. This was no innocent mistake: it was pointed out to both Medialens and FAIR that their source was dubious and its claim highly questionable. The source was discredited soon afterwards, and Der Spiegel and the UN have since both confirmed the original reports. Neither Medialens nor FAIR has apologized. Here meanwhile is Al Jazeera’s investigation into the massacre.
[youtube http://youtu.be/dsZzhmaf7oc?]
On May 25, 2012, the once serene region of Houla in Syria became the scene of events that shocked the world – the massacre of around 100 civilians, almost half of them children. The Syrian regime blamed the massacre “terrorist” groups, but this investigation paints a different picture.
Mustafa Abu Ali “They Do Not Exist” – (1974). (Full Segment).
“In the late 1960s, a group of young Arab women and men devoted to the struggle for Palestinian freedom chose to contribute to the resistance through filmmaking, recording their lives, hopes, and their fight for justice. Working in both fiction and documentary, they strived to tell the stories of Palestine and to create a new kind of cinema.
These filmmakers included founders Mustafa Abu Ali, Sulafa Jadallah, and Hani Jawhariya. Others were Khadija Abu Ali, Ismael Shammout, Rafiq Hijjar, Nabiha Lutfi, Fuad Zentut, Jean Chamoun and Samir Nimr. Most were refugees, exiled from their homes in Palestine. And additionally there were fellow Arabs who stood in solidarity with them, devoting their work to a just cause. Their films screened across the Arab world and internationally but never in Palestine. None of the filmmakers were allowed into Palestine, or what became known as Israel, let alone their celluloid prints.”
Annemarie Jacir, The Electronic Intifada: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6603.shtml
“Salvaged from the ruins of Beirut after 1982, Abu Ali’s early film has only recently been made available. Shooting under extraordinary conditions, the director, who worked with Godard on his Ici et Ailleurs (Here and Elsewhere), and founded the PLO’s film division, covers conditions in Lebanon’s refugee camps, the effects of Israeli bombardments, and the lives of guerrillas in training camps. They Do Not Exist is a stylistically unique work which demonstrates the intersection between the political and the aesthetic.
Now recognised as a cornerstone in the development of Palestinian cinema, the film only received its Palestine premiere in 2003, when a group of Palestinian artists “smuggled” the director to a makeshift cinema in his hometown of Jerusalem (into which Israel bars his entry). Abu Ali, who saw his film for the first time in 20 years at this clandestine event noted: “We used to say ‘Art for the Struggle’, now it’s ‘Struggle for the Art'”
Palestine Film Foundation: http://www.palestinefilm.org/resources.asp?s=libr&film_id=28
Mustafa Abu Ali, who died July 2009. Considered the founding father of Palestinian Cinema, Abu Ali created the PLO’s Film Division.
Improved Copy – Source: http://blip.tv/file/4398351
MUndas from Walls
Why do you think those soldiers did not defect earlier ? Antoine, As you may have understood from mgb’s translation, those soldiers did not defect. They were caught while they were still with the regime. In a way, I sympathize with them. It is not easy to defect. Everyone of us should feel lucky we were not put in their position. I have come across relatives of killed soldiers by the mukhabarat because they refused to shoot at protesters.
I have met someone recently whose relative was killed along with seven other soldiers because they refused or were not cooperating and shooting at civilians. The kid called his mother one time crying while his mother was begging him not to shoot at anyone. The kid told his mom “mama, my superior مقدم already threatened me”. A few days later, he was shot dead along with his friends, and his family was begging to get his dead body back.
My answer to your question is, if they defect where do they go? I believe defections will get easier from this point on because the whole country is in an upheaval. We all understand the effects of a totalitarian, criminal regime on a society and its members. Everyone is politicized now. Everyone has chosen sides by now. A broader way of phrasing your question is “how could someone defend or support this criminal regime after what’s happened?” who in the history of mankind bombed his own cities? And i think that the scum of the scum are those living outside the country and defending the regime. It takes a Phd to answer these questions.
To answer your other question “Btw why do you find physical abuse against regime soldiers and shabbiha to be disturbing” As someone who lived outside Syria longer than I have lived inside, I say it is much easier for those living outside to rationalize events. It is also good to have voices calling for human rights etc… But as someone currently living in Syria, I’m more radicalized than I ever thought I would ever be. As an example, I, and everyone I know, were thrilled to hear the bombing of the Syrian Ikhbaria TV station. I am a firm believer in the freedom of the press.
That channel was anything but a mukhabarat branch. I would’ve felt bad if they ever allowed free press in Syria. I didn’t mind seeing the execution of the Berri gang in Aleppo. Realistically, these things will happen. But compared to what the criminal regime has done, it was nothing. We have lived the regime’s atrocities for the past year and half. Again, I don’t mind the voices calling for human rights. But who can rationalize with victims, the widows, the orphans, and the displaced?. We live this misery every single moment in Syria. I say that because when I travel outside Syria, I get distracted and get my mind off the misery even if it’s for a few hours a day.
On a positive note, I will say again that I had never been more proud as a Syrian than I have been since the start of the revolution. As hard as it tried, the criminal regime was not able to destroy every Syrian. There’s a huge segment of the society that is caring and supporting the distressed. You will not believe how Syrians are looking out for each other. That’s what sustained the revolution. I believe the revolution has passed its mid point, so the happy ending is near. I am sooooo proud to be Syrian. When this is over I’m going to buy the new Syrian flag and hang it outside my home. I never owned a flag before.
*****
The treatment of the Syrian refugees by neighboring countries is appalling. It has improved somewhat recently. But up to about three weeks ago, seeing some families being turned back, especially those from restive areas, makes you cry. it seems like Jordan wants to get paid, Lebanon is not an independent country, and neither is Iraq.
I get annoyed when I see people criticize Turkey. Turkey has done more for the revolution than any other country in the world. They hosted the opposition and refugees. Some people want Turkey to fight our war, thus displaying ignorance about democracies. Unlike ASSad and his likes, in a democacy, you have to convince the 50% that didn’t vote for you why it’s in their national interest to wage a war.
17. Altair said:
This rewrite of history by Michael Doran and many other western commentators annoys me to no end. Syria is not an artificial construct of 4-5 regions. Rather Syria was one unit under the Ottoman empire and partitioned by Britain and France.
The southern half became Palestine and was further partitioned with the creation of Transjordan, while the northern half had Syria’s coastline further reduced with the loss of Lebanon and furthermore the loss of Iskenderun.
Will these (probably Zionist) enemies of Syria never stop? I think we should throw this sectarianism back at them. The sectarianism began with the foundation of Israel as a Jewish state, and the foundation of Lebanon as a Christian one (albeit one that didn’t stay that way).
Syrians should never accept this as legitimate, ever. Once the sectarian precedent was set, look what happens. The pieces get broken more and become smaller and smaller. Let these enemies have their way, and there will be a bunch of economically dependent mini-states all over the region, beholden to outsiders for just about everything. Look at Kuwait as an example. Or Lebanon. Or Jordan. None of these countries are truly independent and probably never will be.
Actually, Syria (the downsized one) is the only one currently with any chance of an independent future economically. Anyone who suggests that it should be further partitioned should be treated as an enemy and opposed categorically.
This move towards sectarianism must likewise be opposed. It is absolutely ludicrous to have yet another mini-state, an Alawi one this time. And why? Alawis can’t live with Sunnis? They did fine prior to the Baath takeover. So did the Kurds. Let the healing begin as soon as possible. Let a new constitution guarantee every citizen full and equal citizenship rights.
Look at Lebanon. Was this a raving success? Will Lebanon ever really have a future as a strong state. The answer is simple: no.
Instead of talking about more mini-states, the people of the Levant should be talking about reversing this sectarianism that has been manipulated by outside forces and reuniting the region. It can be put back together: it has been united as one region far longer that it was divided.
(Need a historical precedent: in 1869 German was more than a dozen states. In 1870, it was one).
(Need an example of many sects living within one nation: the United States of America).
It might be difficult to talk about Lebanon or Jordan or Palestine reverting to or reuniting with Syria today, and certainly Israel will be an obstacle to any strong state emerging. But the history shouldn’t be forgotten, nor the ideals of unity (read the report of the King Crane commission of 1919 for evidence). But in the meantime, it should be unthinkable of dividing Syria further. That idea was rejected in the 1940s by the Syrians themselves and should be rejected now.
Syria is one of the oldest nations in the world, the land of the original alphabet. It is a crime to suggest its further partition.
band annie's Weblog 