With Hayat Tahrir al-Sham's (HTS) march on Damascus, there has been a strong difference in opinion among the supporters of Palestine’s resistance against Israeli barbarism. Some view the developments as foreshadowing the complete “liberation” of Syria from the oppressive Baath rule, others regard them as simply serving the interests of the empire and Israel, taking advantage of the difficulties that the chief allies of Syrian regime leader Bashar Assad, namely Russia and Iran, have recently been facing elsewhere. Both perspectives enjoy some evidential support.
Syria under the Baath rule has certainly not been a country where everyone could live in peace and tranquillity. Its form of government has been indistinguishable from that of the monarchies of the region, which seem to attract frequent universal criticism and condemnation. On the other hand, merely by looking at the statements put out recently by the most fanatic Zionists regarding what is happening in Syria today, one could justifiably get the impression that it indeed serves the interests of Israel, if not only by diverting global attention from the genocide in Gaza but also by materially diminishing the abilities and effectiveness of those in the broader region who have been challenging Israel.
Visegrad 24, a Polish media publisher that has been consistently cheerleading Israel’s genocidal conduct for the last year, posted on X, almost in a tone of flattery, that, “Turkey has defeated Russia and Iran in Syria,” emphasizing, “it (had) to be said clearly.” Attached to the post was a picture of Turkish soldiers with a massive Turkish flag, clearly suggesting praise. The enthusiasm was odd, as the same Visegrad 24, not long ago, was trying to brand President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as the devil himself and passionately encouraging Kurdish separatism in Türkiye.
In this connection, the critical view revolves around the truism that one cannot be both friends and foes with Israel. Supporting Palestine’s resistance in other ways but disrupting the abilities and effectiveness of the “axis of resistance” at the same time is taken to be a contradictory position if we think rationally. The latter is allied with, and provides significant support to, Palestine, and this is why the empire, guided by Israel, has been so determined to destroy it. The worry is understandable, but what is curious is that for many of those who have entertained these considerations, the YPG’s role, as the PKK terrorist group's Syrian wing, in the Syrian civil war seems to remain immune to similar criticisms.
How is it that the PKK/YPG, the empire’s main military and political apparatus in Syria, is not subjected to the same level of scrutiny on exactly the same grounds? How is it that the PKK/YPG is spared criticism in this regard when it is really another challenger to the Syrian government? The terrorist group is provided weapons and training by the empire itself so that it could be used later on to reshape the region in the interests of Israel.
In fact, some have already started sharing partition plans for Syria, which makes the case. Eli David, a psychopathic champion of Israeli barbarism, posted on X a map of Syria partitioned by a “three-state solution” between separate Shiite, Sunni and Kurd/Druze states, the latter of which he specified as the “allies of America and Israel, to border Iraq, Jordan and Israel.” Of course, this is in complete opposition to Türkiye’s official position, which was reiterated recently: Syria’s territorial integrity is essential for any future settlement.
It is interesting that some of the excellent critics of the empire, who recently drew attention to a disturbing article in The Times of Israel reporting that “opposition figures speaking to Israeli TV say they love Jewish state and want to forge a relationship,” refuse to acknowledge that the loving relationship between the PKK/YPG and the misnamed “Jewish state” would be at least as, if not more, intimate. And the plausible criticism of the religious sectarianism of the Islamist factions in Syria could be applied equally to the PKK/YPG’s ethnic sectarianism.
It is also worth noting in this connection that Assad had refused to negotiate with Erdoğan unless Türkiye completely withdrew from northern Syria, where its military presence was established mainly against the threat of the PKK/YPG. However, right after the HTS’s march on Damascus had begun, Assad’s government left some territories for the PKK/YPG to come and take over. Then the question is this: How can Assad, who is supposed to defend the territorial integrity of Syria, cooperate better with the PKK/YPG, which overtly works with the empire but pursues ethnic sectarianism and possibly separatism, than with Türkiye, which has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the territorial integrity of Syria?
