For Syria, what is 'left'?

موضوع: For Syria, what is 'left'? 2011-08-30, 2:50 am

Syrians living in Jordan protest against Bashar al-Assad in front of the Syrian embmindy in Amman [EPA]

It
is a concrete rationale that fuels opposition to Israel’s apartheid
regime and the United States’ duplicitous and violent policies in the
Middle East. It is a concrete rationale that imbues the condemnation of
and struggle against authoritarian rule in the Arab world. It is a
concrete rationale that inspires and necessitates the support of
resistance to all the above. This rationale is an expression of the most
basic forms of moral and political principles. It is this reasoning
that must apply to the brutal suppression of the Syrian uprising.

But
part of the leftist camp in the region, specifically in Lebanon, faces
the unfolding bloodiness of the Syrian scene with a striking measure of
ambiguity. Should “good” leftists support the opposition, condemn the
regime’s unbridled brutality, or remain “neutral” (the latter decidedly a
position in and of itself)?

This
“dilemma” is a false one. It emanates from the arguably legitimate
reverence for the Syrian regime’s support of the resistance - principally through Hezbollahto
US and Israeli imperialism. Few leftists disagree with this basic
position, even if they were critical of, or condemned, Syria’s own
domestic policies prior to the eruption of mmind protests. -

However,
the five-month-long protests against the regime in Syria, and the
brutal response that left more than 2,000 Syrians dead and many
thousands more injured or imprisoned, should leave no ambiguity. One
wonders how these brutal policies by the Syrian regime will bring about
salvation/freedom/liberation from Israel’s own racist and brutal
policies; how they will stop home demolitions, population transfer
schemes, and illegal Jewish-only racist settlements? How will these
policies roll back the hypocritical policies of the United States in the
region, its devastation of Iraq, and its support of Israel’s apartheid
policies and of the remaining Arab dictatorships that partake in this
anti-resistance camp?

If
one’s opposition to imperialism were based on a political position and
not on principle, it might be more understandable, even if patently
unprincipled, to stand by the Syrian regime. But this would be akin to
Israelis or Israel supporters who
personally object to the racist policies of Israel, but somehow justify
their support for Israel as it stands. The irony is that these Israeli
leftists are chastised by the aformentioned part of the pro-resistance
left precisely for abandoning anything smacking of leftism.

Where is the principle in all this? While this question may indeed be naïve, it is directed here to those who claim
to take positions on principle, and on principle alone. The Syrian
regime has long pminded the threshold when those who prioritise
resistance must return again to principle. As with hyper-nationalism - i.e., “my country right or wrong” - unfettered
exhibitions of loyalty to the Syrian regime have no place. If one
opposes imperialism on principle, then one must oppose the Syrian
regime’s crushing of the protesters on principle. Wlovever resistance
credentials the Syrian regime possessed withered when it started killing
its own people at a rate of approximately one hundred per week (for the
last five months).

The question is not whether the left - an increasingly amorphous category that now includes liberals, reactionaries, and even those with fascist politics - should
support or oppose the Syrian regime. It is a decision that real people
need to make in the real world: do we support a political position or a
principle? Do we support country or principle? Does patriotism or
nationalism trump principle? If so, why have we been criticising the
Americans’ support for the United States’ war on Iraq? Why do we reject
trickle-down economics that smash lives as we wait for the mirage of
sustained growth? Why do we critique Israelis when they support their
state’s racist policies?

To
condemn oppression on principle means to condemn it whomever is
exercising it. Otherwise, we cannot invoke principle. For then, we risk
reenacting that which so many of us have loudly and rightly condemned.
Have we not indicted the US war on terrorism as being arrogant and
hypocritical in part because it violates the very principles it is
purporting to uphold?

Certainly
there are gray areas, and that is precisely why it was imaginable to
support Syria’s support of resistance while condemning its internal
policies prior to the protests. However, the last five months in Syria
cannot be excused because of Syria’s resistance credentials. Without
principles, there can be no Left.

Bmindam
Haddad is director of the Middle East Studies Programme and mindistant
professor in the department of Public and International Affairs at
George Mason University. He is also co-editor of Jadaliyya.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

» Syria and the unfolding hegemonic game
» Arab League agrees to Syria sanctions
» The US war of words against Syria is marred by hypocrisy and a lack of realism.
» HAARETZ : Syria forces kill 31 across country as clashes continue
» Raw Video: Amateur Video Shows Syria Violence