Martyrs’ Blood on Western Hands

I support foreign intervention, within the framework of the United Nations, to alleviate injustice and the suffering of oppressed people. However, this principle isn’t yet fully formed, as it has come to depend on the whims and interests of Western powers. They intervened in Iraq and Libya because they had oil, but they haven’t intervened in Burma or North Korea because there’s nothing enticing there. The Syrians have fallen into this trap. They imagine that the West will apply the same tactics they used in Libya and protect them. They became doubly eager after they witnessed Western planes strike Gadhafi’s convoy and saw what the West achieved for the families of the rebels. They’re waiting for the West to do something similar to Bashar Assad or, at the very least, to protect them from his forces. Their leaders called for Syrians to be given a safe haven along the lines of what happened in Kurdistan during the era of Saddam Hussein. As of the time that this article was being written, the West has shown no intentions of doing so. I believe that they will leave the Syrians in their plight and that if it weren’t for the Syrians' hopes, the rebels would not have persisted in challenging the regime.

The United States hasn’t even done as much as it did in Egypt and Tunisia, where they warned the armed forces against intervening, clearing the way for the rebels who forced the two presidents to leave. The U.S., in particular, bears responsibility for what is happening in Syria; when the regime begged the rebels to surrender, Obama urged them not to give in without giving them any real support. This is the type of thing Saad Zaghlul described when he said, “There are some people who, when they see an attacker attacking and the victim crying, tell the victim to stop crying before they tell the attacker to stop attacking.”

But the lack of significant oil wealth in Syria doesn’t completely explain this American coolness. There are other strategic factors. I always look for Israel’s role in any Middle Eastern issue and in the shaping of U.S. decisions. A few days ago, General Amos Gilad, Director of Policy and Political-Military Affairs at the Israel Ministry of Defense, expressed his opinion that the fall of Assad would lead to the Muslim Brotherhood taking power. This would then lead to the rise of an Islamic empire surrounding Israel on all sides — Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan — which would represent a danger to Israel. And as we know, Israel has enjoyed complete calm on the Syrian border throughout Assad’s rule. They no longer have an interest in regime change in Damascus, and Tel Aviv has thus not played a role in urging the U.S. to intervene.

This leads me to a reminder to readers about what I said previously about parties of political Islam becoming an obstacle in the path of change and development in the Islamic world. Everyone is afraid of power falling into the hands of the “Islamists.”

In my opinion, Syrian minorities, such as the Kurds and the Christians, haven’t joined the revolution in any real fashion. It’s the same with minorities throughout the Islamic world — it happened in Iraq, when the Christians started to leave the country. Perhaps something similar will happen in Syria when Assad falls, with the secularists, liberals and leftists following suit and leaving. Apart from that, Western powers aren’t very enthusiastic about supporting movements that lead to “Islamist” rule.

I would say one thing to them: Everyone, give us a chance. Do us a favor, and get off our backs.