Confliciting Agendas

"Three agendas are in conflict in and over Syria. First, there is agenda of reform/change whose banner is rightly raised by the Syrian people's various forces, factions, coordination committees, and youthful, popular, and social groups. Then there is the agenda of the counter-revolution to the Arab Spring. This is led by states and regimes that have always been opposed and been most hostile to all the Arabs' revolutions and social actions throughout the past sixty years. Today, they have 'hijacked' the Arab League and transformed it into a Trojan horse which they are using to smuggle through their projects. The third agenda is the Israeli one. This is governed by the obsessions of Israel’s ‘security doctrine' which determines the positions adopted by some international decision-making centers to a large extent. Syria’s entire future as a nation, a revolution, and an entity, the entire fate of both Syria and the Syrian people, depends on the success of the forces of revolution and opposition within it, and on differentiating between these agendas, and distinguishing that opposition's patriotic and democratic agenda from the other agendas. This is necessary even when that opposition resorts to the tactic of 'walking alone but hitting at the same target.' After all, any 'mixture,' 'partnership,' or 'association' will only bring the worst of consequences upon Syria's future and its people's fate. We understand how difficult it must be to draw decisive clear lines between these three agendas. They sometimes run in parallel and sometimes part ways. We also realize that the forces raising the banners of each of these agendas may agree and coalesce or differ and part ways, reaching the point of conflict and collision. But we also understand the magnitude of the threats stemming from a confusion between agendas and priorities, and the scale of the damage that will result from those seeking to 'ride on the revolution's back' in an attempt to steer it towards the aims of the counter-revolution. Among the many significant examples of what we mean, we will only point to the attempt to forcefully identify agenda of reform and change with that of the camp hostile to revolution and the Arab Spring. Otherwise, how is it possible to explain this harmony between the discourse of the Syrian opposition and the Arab counter-revolutionary agenda, as expressed by specific states or the Arab League? How is it possible to explain this embrace of the Syrian opposition and the extreme generosity towards it displayed by certain capitals that harbor nothing but hatred towards the opposition in their own countries, even if it is as peaceful as Mother Teresa? How can we explain this unprecedented 'awakening' on the part of the Arab League which has transformed the Arab foreign ministers into a body resembling a 'joint chiefs of staff' of an army in the midst of a ferocious war? How can we explain this extreme concern for reform in Syria from parties that are in greater need for reform and change than Syria? This is maybe an instance of a convergence that we hope will be only temporary and tactical. This is necessary if the Syrian revolution is not to be hijacked just as common Arab action has been hijacked. Another significant example of what we have in mind is the following: Just like the counter-revolutionary camp, the Syrian revolutionary camp is split. Its various sections have reached the point clashing with each other using all available means and in all arenas and domains. For how else can we explain the accusations and  assaults leveled by the ‘opposition’s shabbiha [thugs]’ against  Syrian freedom fighters who have spent the best years of their lives in the regime's torture chambers and prison cells, before any of these shabbihaand those controlling them had learnt the very first lesson in opposition? On the other hand, how can we explain the raging conflict between Assad's regime which objectively is at the heart of the 'counter-revolution' on the one hand, and the forces of counter-revolution on the Arab arena, on the other? This is an unprecedented state of affairs compared to Tunisia and Egypt for example, though it closely resembles what happened in the Libyan case, and partially resembles what is happening in the case of Yemen. We do not wish for the reform and change agenda to be identified or united with the Israeli agenda which may manifest itself in some form of NATO intervention or other 'harmful foreign intervention.' We wager on the awareness and loyalty of the forces raising the banner of reform and change. We wager on the patriotism, Arab nationalism, and honesty of their commitment. We fully realize that when they regain their freedom, dignity, and independent decision, the Syrian people will only stand on the right side of this 'equation' and of 'history.' However, we cannot absolve the counter-revolutionary agenda and the forces behind it from colluding with Israeli or NATO agendas regarding Syria. After all, these forces have a long record of far-from-innocent alliances and coalitions. They have often come together in extremely dubious schemes and strategies. Today, they are at the height of ecstasy in settling old/new scores with an entire camp; one which they have always wished for the earth to split and swallow up its various pillars and constituents. As for those who are today singing panegyrics to the Arab League's awakening and its 'surpassing itself,' they should  not rush into making judgments and assessments that they will soon regret when the sparks of the Arab Spring spread to burn the fingers that are still fondling drops of water, snow, and oil. Then, and only then, will everyone with eyes to see discover that what is happening in the League's corridors is not an 'awakening' but a 'setback' for which there is no cure. If 'political color-blindness' has befallen the Arab League and prevented it from seeing the blood being spilt in Yemen and other Arab Spring countries, it is really sad that the Yemeni lesson has not proven sufficient to convince some voices and pens to seriously examine the lie of 'the League's awakening.' It is sad that some of our enlightened and enlightening thinkers, some of the sheikhs, advocates, and scholars of the 'awakening' have – under pressure of petty calculations – agreed to act as banners for the 'counter-revolution,' under a thick smoke-screen of deceptive and deceitful talk, statements, and slogans about reform. "It is sad that they have turned into mere pliant tools in the hands of the foreign policy of some of the leading states and pillars of the counter-revolution,"