One of the most hazardous and malignant tricks played by enemies of revolutions and of Arab peoples locally and abroad is putting peoples before two bitter choices aiming at bringing them back to obedience and submission and to prevent them from picking the fruits of their revolutions and intifadas.
This filthy trick became crystal clear in Syria, for example, months after the revolution erupted. All are playing openly. In Syria, the regime started using the Takfiris, terrorists and extremists against Syrians from the early days of the revolution. Buthaina Shaaban, an Assad adviser, was seen at that time holding such a card in the face of Syrians although the Syrian revolution remained popular peaceful and intact for months before the regime derailed it.
No doubt the regime was preparing to use this paper against Syrians decades ago; the regime excels in creating takfiri and terrorist groups and preparing them for the due time to put Syrians, if they revolt against it, before two choices: either the regime or the extremists. The regime actually succeeded in using this stinky card and many Syrians started saying: the devil you know!
The extremists did their best to polish the image of the Assad regime and its likes locally and abroad and many started to prefer the regime to ISIS and its affiliates believing that the regime, unlike ISIS, kills but at least it does not interfere in the simple people’s personal freedom. Had the extremist groups not been conspiring against peoples’ revolutions, they would have come with a better and more genuine project than that of tyrants. But these groups, intentionally aiming at polishing the tyrants’ image, came with obscurantist projects to say to the peoples: better for you to go back to the rule of our proxies, the military generals.
Even in the Western countries which took severe measures against the Assad regime in the beginning of the revolution, many voices started to call for conciliation with the regime and to support it in fighting ISIS, among others. Undoubtedly, the White House openly said: better for ISIS-controlled Syrian cities to be under the regime’s than being in the hands of extremists.
Regardless if the Islamist extremist groups were real revolutionary movements against tyranny and not a mere creation to make revolutions abominable to peoples, they, because of their acts, willy-nilly, played an indisposing destructive role in turning the scale towards the tyrants against whom peoples revolted. Even Syria’s tyrant, as a result, was seen locally and abroad, as a better choice.
No doubt peoples have the right to say loudly: “We have not revolted to go back to the gloominess of the Middle Ages; the revolution is a step forward not backward. We revolted for freedom in the first place so how will we allow extremist groups to tread our simplest personal freedom, let alone political freedom?”
At the same time, however, peoples have to be aware of the projects that target their revolutions locally and abroad. Certainly, peoples have the right to reject the takfiri extremist groups even if they fiercely fought the tyrant regimes and even if they were really against the tyrants. But what is the use if these groups defeat the generals in the Arab Spring countries not to liberate peoples from their despotism and outrun but to replace them and to practice more hideous policies and conducts than those of the ailing and corrupt killers and criminals.
Popular and elite civil movements have to be very aware and have to consider issues logically. We all know that the powers that control the world will not allow extremist groups, or even moderate Islamists to rule. Eventually, whoever supports these groups is certainly like the one shooting at his own feet because the world will stand against him and will turn his country, if he insists on following the extremist groups, to another Afghanistan, or in the best scenario to a failure country like Somalia and will keep it out of the international system. No doubt, the crushed Arab peoples want to get involved in modern civilization with all its aspects, political, civil, economic and democratic as this is the choice preferred by most people.
We do not have to forget that the West did not allow Joerg Haider, a political extremist leader, to come to power in Austria. How will it then allow jihadist groups to come to power in a strategic area such as the Middle East?
We noticed that the west pressured Austria to overthrow Haider despite his winning in the elections with the majority of votes.
Politics is not a matter of continuous confrontations, but is the art of what is possible. The only possible option is to get involved in the world and to interact with it politically, economically and democratically and to succumb to its terms and demands in a way similar to what other countries accepted the democratic game and the modern forms of ruling.
Accordingly, the peoples put before two bitter choices have to reject both of them; peoples have not revolted against ISIS and its likes in the first place, but against tyrant regimes. Why do they have now, as is happening in Syria, to choose between ISIS and the dictatorial regime?
Undoubtedly, there must be a third choice for people to seek and adopt, other than the regime and the extremist groups. This choice is the modern democratic choice. Peoples have to declare it loudly: we have not revolted to escape the frying pan to go into the fire.
faisal- al kasim
Syrians do not want to replace the Devil with Satan
المقالات ذات الصلة
