We have been hit with two earthquakes since October 7, 2023: Operation "Al-Aqsa Flood" and Operation "Deterrence of Aggression." jointly and in opposition to one another the two operations have changed almost everything in the Levant and reshaped the broader Middle East.
One fundamental difference between the two operations is linked to the public debate around each of them.
The Arab circles that supported "The Flood" prohibited voicing any criticism or even reservations of the operation- mind you, this is an operation that anyone who maintained a few rational, humanist, and self-interested convictions would find difficult to support. To the latter, "The Flood" seemed like an extemporaneous attack that made no distinction between people and people, and showed no concern for the balance of power, to say nothing about the fact that it was grounded in extremely primitive ideas and values, and bound to end in disaster for the Palestinian people. Despite this, every slur in the book was hurled at those who opposed this dark day or urged caution. Betrayal, treason, Zionism, and mercenary raced to create an abominable climate of self-adulation coupled with the silencing of any dissent. With this consciousness that seeks the extermination of reason, ethics, and freedom, things that cannot be overlooked were overlooked. Thus, supposedly sensible people chanted behind Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Deif and supposed atheists borrowed Hassan Nasrallah’s mystical rhetoric, while staunch feminists found in spokesperson Abu Ubaida, and perhaps in his colleague Yahya Saree, the ideal man for a society of gender equality.
In short, pettiness armed with the power of "the cause" shut the door to the debate, and it became clear that this "cause’s" ultimate demand was the suspension of everything that lives. The people of "The Flood" showed themselves to be one-dimensional human beings incapable of being "for" and "against" at the same time- tribal people who sacrifice all meaning and every value to fight Israel and to fight it in any way possible. In a word, they are like soldiers who carry out orders but do not object afterward, preparing themselves entirely to rejoicing in a shining victory.
The milieus excited about the overthrow of Assad and his regime, on the other hand, did not conduct themselves in this manner. They presented a different scene. Instead of waiting for the revolution's opponents and enemies to point their arrows at the new authorities, they endeavored to criticize it themselves, and to do so mercilessly. Thus, loudest attacks against the authorities that managed to overthrow Assad, free the prisoners, make it possible for refugees to return, and liberate Syria from Iranian and Russian hegemony came from within. The door to debate just about everything, from politics to society and from the concept of legitimacy to the status of women, has very much been opened...
While some saw the pledges of allegiance to "The Flood" as evidence that this was a nationalist battle, or a religious battle, meaning that the "The Flood's" “cause” constitutes a "primary contradiction" which life ought to be postponed for, the same cannot be said about the commentary around "Deterrence of Aggression.” We rarely hear the term "cause" used to characterize this event that has immediate implications for the lives of 24 million people and that ended 54 years of criminal rule. It was as though the constituency happy to see Assad ousted was apprehensive about allegiance discourse as they celebrated his downfall. After all is said and done, the discourse around "The Flood" stifles contradiction and puts life on hold much the same way as Assad's despotic discourse.
Then, while both operations were carried out by political-religious actors, the constituency that pledged allegiance to "The Flood" did so because of their commitment to an ideology- religious, nationalist, or leftist- that is haunted by the "primary contradiction" with imperialism, which is one reason for its unreserved alignment behind Sinwar and Nasrallah. As for the second case, because of the shift away from the world of "causes" and its discourse, and perhaps the influence of democratic societies that Syrian critics sought refuge in, the group that carried out "Deterrence of Aggression" has been rewarded with nothing but criticism and reservations.
Those who thanked Ahmad al-Sharaa quickly coupled their gratitude with critique. We know that in our culture, both pre-modern and modern, the grateful are expected to bow their heads before those they thank without addressing their shortcomings, which must be overlooked to avoid nullifying the expression of gratitude. The poet Faraj Birqdar, who spent many years in Assad's prisons, offered one of the thousands of articulations of this nuanced position. "In truth, the military command’s achievement was miraculous. I mean, they wrote the final chapter of the Assad dynasty, and I believe that most Syrians appreciate this feat. However, the success of the military command in regard, indeed their extraordinary leap, does not mean that they are now the de facto representatives of the revolution and its initial and fundamental goals. Representing the revolution requires achieving many steps, the most basic criterion being that its words and actions must be antithetical to those of Assad and his apparatuses."
Thus, we find ourselves facing a major development that tells us, as though to postpone or close off life: "Do not speak, pledge allegiance," and another significant event that demands us discussion and making "a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend," in line with the slogan that Mao Zedong had raised before betraying it. So, which direction will we take?
