December 17, 2024
Nasser Kandil
• As everyone except the Turkish President anticipated, meticulous planning, preparation, and organisation were not enough to declare victory in the campaign to overthrow Syria. In effect, Syria has been placed under Turkish mandate. President-elect Donald Trump was characteristically blunt in describing the situation: “Turkey has done it. It has been dreaming of this for decades. Yet it closed one front of the conflict while leaving another unresolved”. Clearly, Trump was referring to the Kurdish front, which he knows the U.S. deep state and its ally Benjamin Netanyahu are committed to keeping open, preventing Turkey from settling the matter.
• The Syrians now face a mandate that evokes memories of the French Mandate, where every occupying power seeks to forge alliances and market a concept of stability that preserves its privileges. But they also face an Israeli occupation, not limited to the annexed Golan Heights, but extending dangerously close to Damascus. Meanwhile, relentless Israeli airstrikes aim to dismantle the Syrian army’s capabilities.
Syrians cannot adopt a narrative that prioritizes building governance mechanisms over a national political stance. Such governance must be rooted in the vision of a sovereign Syrian state – free from mandates, rejecting any occupation, and uncompromising toward aggression of any kind.
• In 1982, Lebanon endured a similar experience. Many believed it would take decades for the Lebanese to even begin contemplating resistance against the occupation and its projects. After a brutal civil war, it seemed likely that they would prioritize rebuilding the state under international patronage, particularly from the West, led by the United States, which held the leverage to pressure “Israel” into withdrawing its occupation forces. At the time, Lebanon was emerging from a violent era marked by factional clashes involving Palestinian organisations, and the Israeli invasion was seen by some as a relief from that turmoil. The dominant sentiment included animosity toward the Palestinians, and later toward the Syrians – mirroring the hostility in certain Syrian circles today toward Iran, and to a lesser extent, Russia.
However, the Lebanese did not delay in realising the futility of constructing a new authority under occupation and mandates, or under the auspices of their allies. Multiple Lebanese forces eventually coalesced around political, popular, and later military resistance against the occupation. This echoes the Syrians’ united uprising a century ago against French occupation, during which they rejected partition plans, linked the causes of unity and liberation, and fought for twenty years until their nation achieved independence.
• Syrians succeeded against the French mandate because they denied the occupation any chance to exploit their unity. The Lebanese succeeded in resisting occupation because they prioritised preventing the re-ignition of civil war, engaged in reconciliation efforts, and made national cohesion a cornerstone of their resistance. Today, Syrians are striving to navigate this challenging moment with minimal damage to their unity, working to safeguard civil peace, strengthen national solidarity, and uphold their historical responsibility to reject any mandate, resist all occupations, and confront every form of aggression.
• While Syrians focus on stabilising their internal unity, war may erupt in the north. Competing and overlapping international agendas are being settled with Syrian blood. Turkey seeks to consolidate its control over Syria by eliminating the U.S.-protected Kurdish enclave, which Israel aspires to transform into an autonomous region with its own armed forces and oil resources, akin to Iraqi Kurdistan. This development, within and beyond the state’s framework, could offer Syrians a brief respite – a necessary pause to reflect on the plans being devised for their country and how they must seize control of their future.
