The words "resistance nation" are often being heard in the Syrian media, in reference to Baathist Syria since March 1963. The West is targeting Syria, Syrian media is saying, because of its commitment to the resistance in Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon.
Let us stop and think about that for a moment: Syria has always been a "resistance nation." The "culture of resistance" existed long before the Baath Party came to power in 1963. The Baathists did not introduce the word "resistance" to Syrian textbooks. What they did was build upon the deep-rooted culture of resistance in Syrian society, in order to blend in with the mass majority of Syrians who were non-Baathist. In fact, it was because of Syria's culture of resistance that the Baath Party was created in the first place, back in 1947. We should make that crystal clear to the entire world -- especially members of the Baath Party who need not overplay their role in the history of modern Syria.
Why did the French colonize Syria in 1920? Because they saw a lot of potential in this small Middle Eastern country that they wanted to exploit, and did, until evacuating in 1946. Why did the Americans launch the first coup d'etat of the Arab world in 1949 in Damascus? Because they realized that the Syrians, government and public alike, were a hard-headed and stubborn people who would not fulfill U.S. interests in the Middle East. Why did the Americans try to launch two coups in Syria in the 1950s? Again, because the Syrians were acting too independently from U.S. interests in the Arab world and cozying up to the Soviet Union.
Syrians went to war in Palestine in 1936 and 1948, long before the Baathists came to power in Damascus. Syrians are actually a proud people who never wanted their lives or actions to be dictated by a single party like the Baath or a Western power, be it London, Paris, Washington or Moscow. A strange combination of Syrian and Arab nationalism comes to a confluence in the Syrian street. This "culture of resistance," that is now heard from Hezbollah and the Baath, actually existed under Shukri al-Quwatli in the 1940s, and under Adib al-Shishakli and Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s. It was only natural for it to continue under the Baathists since 1963.
It is part of Syria's national identity and, because of that, Syrians have paid a high price over the past 100 years for their nationalism. Shukri al-Quwatli was defiant. That is why he was ejected by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1949. Adib al-Shishakli was defiant. That is why the U.S. did not lift a finger to defend him when his regime was toppled in 1954. So were Hashem al-Atasi, Nazim al-Qudsi, Amin al-Hafez, Nur al-Din al-Atasi and Hafez Assad. In fact, the only common denominator in every ruler in Syria was a strict commitment to Syrian nationalism and the Palestinian cause, which is part of a broader commitment to Arab nationalism.
The Syrians believe that Syria is a small country with a big brand, a brand that rejects Israel and which since March 2011, wants to live in a democracy. The democracy they aspire for is one where a state of law prevails, where there is no nepotism or corruption, and where the undeniable rights of every Syrian citizen are respected and upheld by the government. Democracy means freedom of speech, thought and conduct. Democracy will help strengthen the brand called Syria and will create a culture of resistance that is unprecedented in the Arab world. It is foolish to believe that if/when the Baath is no longer "leader of state and society," Syria would crumble before international pressure to sign peace with Israel or automatically transform into a Mubarak-like Egypt. On the contrary, the exact opposite will happen to Syria, because of the will and might of the Syrian people.
Having said that, two realities need to be settled as the crisis in Syria unfolds. One is that "resistance" is not exclusive to the Baathists, and should not be monopolized by them. Syria will continue to be a "resistance nation" long after the Baath Party is no longer mandated to lead Syria by the Syrian Constitution. Another reality that needs to be understood is that a people who are free and dignified are more likely to liberate the Golan -- and help bring statehood to the Palestinians -- than a people who are not.
"In fact, it was because of Syria's culture of resistance that the Baath Party was created in the first place, back in 1947."
and
"Syrians are actually a proud people who never wanted their lives or actions to be dictated by a single party like the Baath"
The author says
"Syrians are actually a proud people who never wanted their lives or actions to be dictated by a single party like the Baath"
yet
"In fact, it was because of Syria's culture of resistance that the Baath Party was created in the first place, back in 1947."
Huh? Can someone explain this to me because I am baffled at what he is trying to say.
"The words "resistance nation" are often being heard in the Syrian media, in reference to Baathist Syria since March 1963."
Syrian media? Syrian media is state-run! It is an obvious ploy to distract from the fact the country is being run by dictators by telling the people that they have a 'resistance nation'
"The Syrians believe that Syria is a small country with a big brand, a brand that rejects Israel and which since March 2011, wants to live in a democracy."
So their brand is that they hate Israel and 4 months ago they decided they like democracy? (I think that if I wrote that sentence, i would be flagged mercilessly for insinuating that the only thing that Syria has to offer the world is hatred of israel.)
"It is foolish to believe that if/when the Baath is no longer "leader of state and society," Syria would crumble before international pressure to sign peace with Israel"
Who believes that?? And what international pressure is on Syria to sign a treaty with Israel?
"Another reality that needs to be understood is that a people who are free and dignified are more likely to liberate the Golan"
Liberate? I honestly can't tell if the author is suggesting that a 'free and dignified' Syria would be likely to attack israel or is 'liberate' is just an really strange way of saying "negotiate the return of in the context of a peace treaty.
But, being the supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah, and their ilk as you are, I suppose you cannot see the difference.
Having said that, it would be in the best interests of the Syrian people to make peace with Israel, establish relations, and open up trade and commerce and work together for common cause in the region. Friends can still disagree and argue, certainly...but the suffering and killing is unnecessary. If Syria were to embrace peace and some more popular government, I think Damascus would find Jerusalem quite accommodating...and perhaps the Golan would return to Syria, or be shared, or some creative arrangement could be reached. Surely peace is worth it?