Who is the winner in Syria?

The images of the areas of confrontations are no longer a proof on what is really going on, for the image is today unable to describe the facts in spite of the eloquence of the satellite channels in dealing with the events. Of course, a lot of those who are following-up the patch of the amount of the people watching in the world are eager to see what happens, but the TV image is no longer professional enough to detect the most realistic image in the event.

With the absence of the truth, those following the Syrian affairs find a group of countless data that throw a lot of the parties into the Syrian crisis, and anyone who cares about this enthusiastic country fears that the blood of its children might be stolen in favor of agendas that are far away from the main objective of the protest movement that was spread and evolved with the development of the demands and the expansion of the spilled blood.

The conflict in Syria is no longer within the political boundaries of Syria, but also the scope of the conflict was widened to extend to the regional and international levels. It was necessary for some of the parties to be with the ruling authority in the country because of the nature of the strategic relationship between them and this authority; other regional and international forces engaged in this conflict for several complex accounts. Nothing can be a proof on this better than the conflict that raged on inside the platforms of the United Nations and the Arab League, as well as the conference of the “Friends of Syria”, which brought to its table all those who carried hatred and hostility towards Syria over the successive historical periods of time in the modern era.

This is what sparked the revulsion of many Syrian opponents before raising the ire of the authority in Damascus. Perhaps, the most things that infuriates the different Syrian parties, was knowing before the background of these forces and States, and the nature of their interests, which have found in the Syrian blood a point of investment away from the interests of the Syrian people.

Moreover, some of the members of the opposing Syrian National Council showed signs of division within this Council that is wondering who would surrender first. Some of the national Syrians started to feel that there is appropriation within this Council in favor of a specific group that is trying to draw on its own with pride and arrogance the fate of the Syrian issue, which must be a common responsibility undertaken by all the components of the Syrian national spectrum.

Regardless of the consistency of the National Council actually with the national interest, the Syrian experience in a prior stage proved that this Council is not the actual representative of the Syrian people, and that it is merely a component of a Syrian political Community that is not single-handed on the Syrian arena. The ambiguous positions of some of the first class leadership of the Syrian opposition, which is characterized by patriotism and that does not comply with the aspirations and interests of the Syrian people, raise a lot of question marks about the reality of its performance as a true national component that is not pledged by non-national agendas.

Here we can refer to the statements made by Burhan Ghalioun, for example, which talked about the return of the Golan negotiations, and not with the use of weapons. In fact, this raises a lot of exclamation marks and questions about the media outcry practiced in the face of the regime in Syria; assuming that it did not fire one single shot for the liberation of the Golan Heights.

Despite this, the statements of Ghalioun could have been considered an individual attitude- while they are not - if any official or side within the Council described them as an individual attitude that do not reflect the position of the Council.

However, the silence of the prosecutors within the Council was honest more than Ghalioun’s statements. The term of Galioun’s presidency of the Council was extended twice after these statements, and of course, this is not everything.

The spokesperson of the National Council “Bassima Qdmana” had previous statements issued since 2008, in which she stressed in front of the French media the importance of the existence of “Israel” as a state in the region, and also the National Council’s eloquent silence embarrassed a lot of the national Syrians who expressed their dissatisfaction of these remarks and called the Syrian National Council to take “Qdmana” out of its ranks. Yet, this did not happen, and sure enough will not happen.

It is clear that the necessity issue in Syria for the International parties and for the Syrians that represent them is not to achieve a “change” but a “replacement”. This is confirmed by the international behavior towards Syria, for the replacement is based on coming up with any authority that could serve the foreign interests, and not the national interest. This also makes every Syrian person believes that he/she is honestly looking for a national solution that would keep Syria in history and would not drop it out of it, while it (Syria) is never used to be out of history even in the darkest circumstances.