Thanks to its adjacent geography and shared history, Syria has always been at the heart of the struggle for liberating Palestine. Its role, however, has fluctuated over time.
After the 1973 war and Egypt’s unilateral normalization with Israel, Syria’s direct military involvement came to a halt, save sporadic confrontations during the Lebanese civil war.
Its indirect role in armed resistance, however, rose to prominence after the collapse of the Madrid conference launched in 1991. Shortly after, Israel promptly signed the Oslo Accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Wadi Araba Treaty with Jordan. Syria became the only frontier Arab state, after Lebanon, to stay out of the bandwagon of normalization.
Despite suppressing resistance in the occupied Golan Heights, Syria under Assad rule remained a vital backer of the Hezbollah-led resistance against Israeli occupation next door. It provided major logistical support and geostrategic depth. The liberation of south Lebanon in 2000 and the 2006 war strengthened these ties and justified the rationale behind them.
By contrast, and save a few exceptions, Damascus’ relationship with the Palestinian resistance was always rocky. But a diplomatic rapprochement with Hamas in 2022 brought them closer under the wider umbrella of the alliance known as the “axis of resistance”.
Worrisome signs
Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and its large-scale offensive in Lebanon put the strength of this axis to the test. Since the latter broke out in late September, the willingness of Iran, and more so Syria, to stake out their commitment to support Hezbollah and Hamas became suspect.
The fall of Assad turned the tables altogether. In addition to profound domestic repercussions, his ouster cast severe doubt on the future of Syria’s role as a whole in resisting Israel and US imperialism in the region.
The early signs are worrisome. Prior to entering Damascus, earlier public pronouncements by the leader of Hay’at Tahrir al Sham (HTS), Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, focused on fighting the “Iranian project” while expressing tolerance of US bases in the country and ignoring Israel.
The fall of Assad changed little. Israel’s aerial attacks destroyed substantial military assets of the Syrian state. Tel Aviv’s swift ground invasion, a blatant violation of Syrian sovereignty, gobbled up more Syrian territory. Its tanks reached 20 km from Damascus through a corridor alongside the Lebanese border.
Al-Jolani’s response remained lukewarm. While Israel nullified the 1974 “separation of forces” agreement, he clung to it by stressing that his forces are not seeking to fight Israel. He appealed – in typical Arab regime fashion – to the international community to put pressure on Tel Aviv.
Of equal worry is the reported closing down of military training camps of Palestinian factions associated with the deposed regime and the confirmation by Hezbollah’s new secretary general, Naim Qassim, that the supply line from Syria has been cut. Qasim tried to downplay the impact of such a cut. But it bodes ill for long-term recovery and manoeuvrability.
Proponents of severing ties with Hezbollah will argue that it is justified in light of Hezbollah’s intervention in the Syrian civil war to prop up the repressive Assad regime. There is now bad blood between the two. But this is half the truth.
Supporters of the intervention point out that it was motivated by the necessity to defend the resistance supply lines. Spurred by ideological convenience, each camp has ignored the other’s perspective.
The historical – even if uncomfortable – truth is that both sides of the story are valid. Whatever grudges remain, it should not obscure the fact that it is in the interest of the peoples of the region that a united front is maintained against Israeli aggression and occupation.
Neutrality: a losing strategy
There is room for goodwill to prevail if the new power in Syria is serious about resisting Israel and liberating occupied Syrian land let alone Palestine.
The main bone of contention, the Assad regime, is now gone. Iran’s influence has waned and Hezbollah’s principled stance over Gaza revived its appreciation, if not popularity, in the wider Arab region.
More importantly, Israel is conducting a multi-front expansionist war without regard to or distinction between Palestinian, Lebanese, or Syrian interests. The strategic benefits of retaining an alliance with resistance forces in Lebanon and Palestine are self-evident.
The path to consolidating such an alliance with Hezbollah may be arduous. It may require a series of trust-building measures, including the introduction of a reciprocal restorative justice process to account for past transgressions. Mapping out a common vision of cooperation could retain the strength of the past alliance and avoid any pitfalls.
The alternative scenario would be igniting a vendetta against Hezbollah ranging from border clashes to permanently cutting its supply lines, while paying lip service to supporting Palestinian resistance a la other Arab regimes. Such a policy is the US and Israel’s wet imperialist dream. It is a recipe for further sectarian strife and the neutralisation of the last frontier Arab state.
A “neutral” Syria, aligned with Turkey or Arab Gulf states, will not return the Golan Heights either. Unlike Egypt’s case, when late President Anwar al-Sadat justified his capitulation by recovering Sinai, Syria is in a much weaker position to demand such an outcome.
Uniting forces
Israel’s annexation of the Golan has been blessed by the incumbent US President Donald Trump. Israel officials continue to insist it will remain theirs forever. Decoupling from Hezbollah will further weaken the bargaining position of Syria.
For too long, the Assad regime invoked the conflict with Israel to justify its repressive measures against its people. Its opponents have long dared it to launch resistance in the Golan. Now that the opposition is in power, no such plan is in sight.
But the new winners may flip this equation on its head and use state-building and economic development as a pretext to avoid confronting Israeli occupation and aggression altogether.
Fighting colonialism and authoritarianism should not be exclusive.
Whatever the domestic agenda of the new Syria, uniting with resistance forces in the region and beyond remains key to liberation from a settler-colonial project that has visited so much injustice and grief on Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians alike.
*The writer is Canada Research Chair in the History of the Modern Middle East and Associate Professor of History at the University of British Columbia. He is author of Banking on the State: The Financial Foundations of Lebanon (SUP, 2019), editor of Arab Marxism and National Liberation: Selected Writings of Mahdi Amel (Brill, 2020), and co-editor of The Clarion of Syria: A Patriot’s Call against the Civil War of 1860 (CUP, 2019).
(Middle East Eye)
December 19, 2024
The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of Aequitas Review.
