December 03, 2024
By Nasser Kandil
• Certain states and media outlets in the region attempt to craft a narrative equating the barbaric aggression targeting Aleppo and other Syrian towns and villages with resistance, placing it on the same level as the Palestinian resistance in Gaza. They claim to support both under the guise of standing with the oppressed and defending peoples’ rights.
+
• However, such rhetoric is driven by states, regardless of the expansive media platforms they provide to propagate it. The true measure of solidarity with Gaza lies in a country’s actual positions. These states do not hide their alignment with the American political orbit in the region, despite maintaining open relations with Russia and Iran. For instance, Turkey, a principal NATO member – the global military arm of American hegemony – and Qatar, which hosts the largest U.S. base in the Arab world, claim to support Gaza but carefully calibrate their actions to avoid angering Washington. Turkey, for example, maintains diplomatic ties with the occupying entity, unlike non-Arab, non-Muslim nations like Colombia, Bolivia, and Chile, which severed such relations. Meanwhile, Qatar, under U.S. pressure, has distanced itself from Hamas leaders, framing this as a strategic necessity for ongoing negotiations.
• In the case of the aggression on Aleppo, Qatar’s financial and media sponsorship, alongside Turkey’s military and security backing, is undeniable. The scale of the offensive, with its troop deployments, weaponry, and funding, was impossible without direct support and full partnership from these two nations in planning and execution. This aggression aligns with the Israeli warnings issued by Benjamin Netanyahu to Syria’s president over his backing of resistance forces in Lebanon and Gaza, a support confirmed by the words of martyrs Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Yahya Sinwar.
• This attack on Aleppo has effectively diverted attention from the massacres in Gaza, relegating its plight to a secondary issue. It has given Netanyahu a more favorable position in negotiations against the resistance in Gaza, revived sectarian rhetoric, and reignited divisions that had been largely quelled by the unity forged during the Al-Aqsa Flood. The allegiance of the aggressors is evident in their statements on Israeli media, where they openly align themselves with the occupying entity, sharing the same enemies – Syria’s president, Hezbollah, and Iran – and claiming to fight alongside Israel. Given this alignment, it is self-evident: supporting the aggression against Syria is tantamount to supporting Israel. Thus, can one truly stand with both Gaza and Israel at the same time?
• The contrast between 2011 and today is stark. Back then, the falsehoods of the “Arab Spring” and the so-called “revolutions of the people” were able to infiltrate the collective Arab consciousness. However, this narrative collapsed as people in Tunisia and Egypt returned to centralised state structures, albeit with some modifications, having realised the grave deception of the so-called revolutionaries and the impossibility of coexistence with their agendas.
Today, in the aftermath of the Al-Aqsa Flood and over a year of transformative war, the divide between the camps of resistance and occupation is crystal clear. Attempts to create a third camp, claiming to support both Gaza and the aggression against Syria, are doomed to fail. This is especially true as the aggressors explicitly aim to sever the supply lines of the resistance in Lebanon – a move firmly rejected by Syria’s president.
In essence, this is merely an extension of Israel’s war against Syria, mirroring its aggression in Lebanon – no more, no less.
