Layla Maghribi writes:

The fall of a brutal and inept tyrant should be cause for celebration among a people who rarely triumph over their oppressors. Yet, in Syria’s case, conflicting interests and worldviews have tempered some of the excitement and, in some instances, turned former “freedom-fighting” comrades into questionable allies.

No sooner had the rebel Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) group approached Damascus, poised to topple the Assad regime, than starkly polarized reactions began to surface worldwide, including among Arabs. While most Syrians and their supporters understandably celebrated the downfall of their notorious despot, some self-styled Western “anti-imperialists” — including voices within the pro-Palestinian movement — adopted a more muted stance.

As a self-described anti-imperialist, a Syrian and a Palestinian, I initially struggled to grasp these supposed competing aspirations. Freedom from violent oppression unites all three identities — why wouldn’t they align on Assad’s ouster?

It was after a Syrian friend pointed out a lack of zeal among some of his freedom-fighting activist friends that I started to notice the trickle of belated and trepidatious congratulations on the fall of the regime. “Congratulations but watch out,” came the sentiments.

I nudged an English journalist friend to send me a “mabrook” (congratulations) and he obliged, but not before adding, “are you sure this is what you want?”

“Yes, I’m sure. And please don’t ‘But Hamas’ me right now,” I tapped back, referring to the two words that have become synonymous with diverting and gaslighting the discourse on Palestinian liberation.

Am I sure liberation from Assad is what I wanted? Absolutely. Do I have to be sure about how HTS rule over Syria will be to enjoy that?

“There is a difference between supporting groups and supporting the act of resistance against the common enemy,” wrote a British-Syrian researcher and activist on X in the immediate aftermath of the HTS takeover of Syria.

It feels perverse to see Syrians forced into defensive positions on the day they are freed from half a century of tyranny. Why must Syria’s liberation from a notorious regime that spent decades destroying the fabric of its society — hollowing out its people, resources, land and opportunities — be met with hesitation, muted celebrations or warnings to “watch with caution”? Why can’t it simply be recognized for what it is: a victory for human liberation?

There is growing dismay at those critiquing Assad’s overthrow for showing little regard for the sincere desire for freedom of Arabs and relegating their national aspirations to mere chess moves on a geopolitical board.

Ironically, these oracles of doom are nearly always railing against the paternalistic patronising of Western orientalists of global south countries, and yet here they are telling Syrians they don’t know what’s good for them. As estimations emerge that up to 100,000 Syrians disappeared into Assad’s prison cells, the majority killed, do the naysayers really expect us to be thinking of “worse to come” without the regime? It is beyond demeaning. [Continue reading…]