Why have revolts erupted?

 10 Oct 2013 - 4:34

Have we lost our compass and no longer know our path? Have we got right and wrong mixed? Have we become colour-blind and are no longer able to differentiate between white and black even in broad daylight?

How did the generals and the corrupt men of the previous regime manage to come to power again? How have we turned against the demands of the public, the ballot box, and the demands for a fair revolution — something that everybody believed in with no exception?

Are we justifying for ourselves the sin of stabbing democracy in the back and stomping on it with our feet when people who made mistakes have come to power?

Will things get better in the near future? 

It is clear that three years after the train of change was set in motion, the demands of the revolution are no longer the same and martyrs’ blood was shed almost in vain. 

The counter-revolution has achieved what the great powers failed to do. Petrodollars contributed to achieving victory at the beginning of the path, but the result changed to loss at the end of it. 

We disagreed over the crises in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. We also had differences over Syria and the fear that because of all the massacres and bloodshed the revolution will lose its legitimacy, as we are now talking about the American-Russian agreement to destroy the chemical weapons of the Assad regime, not to force him to stop killing civilians, including women and children. The deal, as the Syrian Revolutionary Coalition put it in its statement, is a game to protect major powers’ and Israel’s strategic interests. 

The violence in the revolution in Syria may lead it to be controlled by extremists, hardliners and terrorists, who are like Assad and his loyalist Arab media, who probably will reap the fruits of the revolution. 

Sadiq Jalal Al Azm, Syrian leftist intellectual, refuses to equate the violence of the revolution with that of the Syrian regime, saying: “formal equality between two types of violence means the denial of the Syrian and non-Syrian peoples their right in rebelling against oppression and tyranny, which they have endured for long”.

He pointed out that the current rift among Syrian sects had surfaced like the return of the historically repressed.

Al Azm added that regular distinctions and natural differences in Syria have been denied and treated with malicious repression and politicisation for years. 

In the end, it seems that in moral tests, a lot of people fall into the abyss of the Arab world, including those who today ask Assad to run for president again.

Have we lost our compass and no longer know our path? Have we got right and wrong mixed? Have we become colour-blind and are no longer able to differentiate between white and black even in broad daylight?

How did the generals and the corrupt men of the previous regime manage to come to power again? How have we turned against the demands of the public, the ballot box, and the demands for a fair revolution — something that everybody believed in with no exception?

Are we justifying for ourselves the sin of stabbing democracy in the back and stomping on it with our feet when people who made mistakes have come to power?

Will things get better in the near future? 

It is clear that three years after the train of change was set in motion, the demands of the revolution are no longer the same and martyrs’ blood was shed almost in vain. 

The counter-revolution has achieved what the great powers failed to do. Petrodollars contributed to achieving victory at the beginning of the path, but the result changed to loss at the end of it. 

We disagreed over the crises in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. We also had differences over Syria and the fear that because of all the massacres and bloodshed the revolution will lose its legitimacy, as we are now talking about the American-Russian agreement to destroy the chemical weapons of the Assad regime, not to force him to stop killing civilians, including women and children. The deal, as the Syrian Revolutionary Coalition put it in its statement, is a game to protect major powers’ and Israel’s strategic interests. 

The violence in the revolution in Syria may lead it to be controlled by extremists, hardliners and terrorists, who are like Assad and his loyalist Arab media, who probably will reap the fruits of the revolution. 

Sadiq Jalal Al Azm, Syrian leftist intellectual, refuses to equate the violence of the revolution with that of the Syrian regime, saying: “formal equality between two types of violence means the denial of the Syrian and non-Syrian peoples their right in rebelling against oppression and tyranny, which they have endured for long”.

He pointed out that the current rift among Syrian sects had surfaced like the return of the historically repressed.

Al Azm added that regular distinctions and natural differences in Syria have been denied and treated with malicious repression and politicisation for years. 

In the end, it seems that in moral tests, a lot of people fall into the abyss of the Arab world, including those who today ask Assad to run for president again.