Stop confusing Kurdistans!
Syria’s leftists must turn hometo Assad
Ebruary 22, 2018
by Ramin Mazaheri
As Assad-backed troops enter Afrin to fight Turkish invaders, the Syrian conflict has entered its decisive crossroads:
Will Northern Syria cooperate with Damascus, or not? This is the key to Syrian peace and territorial unity.
It’s also the question which will make or break claims that a Northern Syrian enclave which refuses to help expel uninvited Americans can somehow be a “leftist project”.
(I say it is a leftist project…IF they return to full cooperation with the Syrian government. I will detail my analysis of thepolitical structure of “Rojava” in an upcoming article – this article only deals with immediate political concerns.)
No question can be answered, however, until I clarify some key facts about Northern Syria. Indeed, reporting about
Northern Syria in the West is rife with the most fundamental errors, and the most egregiously false claims.
Firstly, the Kurds in Syria have only ever asked for autonomy, not independence.
People assume all Kurds are like Iraqi Kurds – separatists – but the Kurds in Syria want to stay within the Syrian state. This disavowal of independence is an undisputed, long-standing (if underreported) fact. Indeed, the arrival of pro-government
forces in Afrin was met with celebrations – the “Arab Socialist Baath Party” is a nationalist one, it seems to have been forgotten. The fact that such celebrations could possibly raise some eyebrows only shows how terrible the West’s mainstream reporting is in Syria.
The second most important point is this: “Rojava”, “Syrian Kurdistan”, “Northern Syria” or the “Democratic Federation of Northern Syria” – whatever it is called – is among the most interesting (and newest) leftist projects in the world today. For that reason alone, nobody is reporting on it honestly.
After all, the Western mainstream media has no governmental or private mandate to support the 99%…much less in a Muslim country…still less in an anti-Zionist country like Syria!
Rojava’s governmental culture is based around ethnic equality, collective unity, local emancipation and undoubtedly socialist-and-not-capitalist inspired democratic & economic ideals. Therefore…the capitalist-imperialist West totally ignores all of that and solely focuses on identity politics: thus, it’s always reported as just “the Kurds”.
That leads to the third important issue: foolishly lumping all the Kurds across Southwest Asia together, thereby assuming that there are no regional differences: For Western media it is as if Kurds walk around all day in a special “Kurdish daze”, so enamored with being Kurdish that the countries and local neighborhoods where they live have absolutely no effect on them or their worldview. Their “Kurdishness” is all-consuming, it seems! The theory underpinning this is identity politics: if you are Kurdish, then you must all think alike.
So it makes no difference if you grew up/lived in Saddam’s Iraq, modern Iran, Baathist Syria, or Istanbul: You are a Kurd and – as a Kurd – you can only possibly see things via the lens of your Kurdishness. But only the West proffers this absurd, one-dimensional view of the Kurds – not the Middle Easterners who live alongside them.
A fourth problem – an even larger one for those in Syria – is that the Kurds in Syria are not even “Kurds”!
What I mean is: Kurds are around ½ of the population of Northern Syria, but only compose around 1/3rd in some of the biggest areas of Rojava, such as Membij. There are Assyrians and Chaldeans – they are Christian. There are Sunni Arabs.
There are Turkmen, who are not allied to Turkey and are Syrian patriots despite their name. There are Circassians,
Armenians, Yazidis, Chechens and others. Hard as it is for non-Muslims to believe: All these people like each other, live & work together, intermarry and have done so for more than a millennia. You cannot even say that all the fighters in this area are Kurds, either, because the Syrian Democratic Forces forces – who helped rout ISIL – are majority non-Kurd.
But they are all Syrian – and they want it to stay that way. This IS the case…even though Kurds in Iraq aimed for independence…and despite the Western anti-Assad propaganda.
Clearly, a major overhaul on the idea of “Kurd” is needed for many….The Kurdish ‘Bad Century’ is relative to where they live Anyone can have a bad century and finish as winners…look at the Chicago Cubs.
So in Northern Syria the “Kurds” are not even Kurdish nearly half the time, LOL, but let’s be like the West and look at the “Kurds” across their 4 main nations.
If we accept that “Kurdishness” is not all-consuming , we can see how the experiences of “Kurds” in Iraq (which also compose Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkmen, etc.) – who lived under Saddam Hussein’s wars, were massacred by the anti-
Iranian MKO homicidal cult, lived in a country forced to endure material shortages caused by US sanctions from 1990- 2003, and who are enduring US invasion and occupation – are fundamentally different than the experiences of “Kurds” in Syria…where these things did not happen.
The experience of “Kurds” in Syria – which is bordered by the menacing, illegitimate state of Israel, which had a different political conception & practice of Baathism than Iraq (which provoked more enmity than cooperation between the two since 1966), which was invaded not by a “coalition of the willing” but radical terrorists, which is on the cusp of benefitting from the
extraordinary national unity which can only be created by victoriously defeating foreign invaders – are fundamentally different than the experiences of “Kurds” in Iraq.
“Kurdishness” in Turkey is an vastly larger issue than Syria, because there are vastly more of them than in anywhere else.
“Kurdishness” in Iran is totally different than in any of the four primary Kurdish countries: they are more accepted there
than any other country.
This is a result of the acceptance promoted by Iran’s modern, popular revolution of 1979 (by definition, you can’t have a
“modern, popular revolution” based on racism/ethnic superiority). Indeed, Iran’s definitive cultural “female Iran-Iraq war
experience” was the best-selling, award-winning story told by a Kurdish immigrant from Iraq to Iran – in the book“Da”,
which means “mother” (not in Farsi). Such a thing could never happen in Turkey, obviously, nor Arab nationalist Syria and
Iraq. This modern acceptance is why Iran is the only nation of the four where there is no chance of fomenting a Kurdish
uprising in Iran: being Iranian and Kurdish is not any sort of contradiction – they are incorporated in the national selfconception
about as much as any numeric minority can reasonably be, as the success of “Da” illustrates. And for this
reason – which is called (Iranian Islamic socialist) “modern democracy” – there is no chance of any sort of a “Kurdish
uprising” in Iran. Even amid this ongoing historical era of Kurdish militancy across the entire region, the PJAK Party
(Iranian Kurdish separatists) gave up armed operations in Iran in 2011: it’s useless – Iran is different, and on the Kurdish
question as well. Israel could spend a zillion usuriously-gained dollars on such a project and it would get nowhere…which
is why they spend their time in the southeast (in Baluchestan with Jundallah).
And, to repeat, because this is so important: The people of Northern Syria have never, ever said they want anything but
autonomy within Syria. This proves that Syrian “Kurds” are not Iraqi “Kurds”, where Barzani and their bid for independence
have been neutralised…much to the dismay of the US & Israel.
An often ignored (or not known) point is that Iraqi “Kurds” had been wooed (or led astray) by the US for two decades via
preferential economic, political, cultural and immigration policies. The US paid for a lot of goodwill over many years. In
Syria – LOL, not at all. So, Syrian “Kurds” have not come into contact with the American ideology anywhere as much…and
their ideology is necessarily different (despite the overpowering Kurdish daze they walk around in, LOL!)
Only by ignoring these realities can one assume the “Kurds” of both regions share the same political outlook in February
2018.
So, I hope we are bit less konfused on who the “Kurds” really are.
Now, because of the leftist nature of northern Syria, we must de-konfuse our notions of their political ideology.
But I’m going to postpone that to part two – let’s talk immediate politics.
A very interesting leftist political project…but not if they ally with the US
It was with great alarm that greeted the recent US declaration that they will keep 2,000 troops in Northern Syria – that news
turned off many to the possibility that northern Syria could possibly be leftist.
And rightly so, but Washington’s plans are simply their desire – there has been no official political deal: Rojavan leaders
insist their cooperation with the US is strictly military to fight ISIL. Indeed, they have grown up in Syria, which has been
attacked by Israel…but now they are going to be allies?
Certainly, the downfall of Barzani in Iraq is a blow to US/Israeli imperialism – so…of course they are refocusing to Northern
Syria. But that doesn’t mean they will get what they want!
Certainly, Northern Syria cannot allow a military base inside its borders. There can be no “Syrian Guantanamo” to
permanently menace a newly-liberated Syria, like in Cuba.
Let’s keep a couple war realities in mind: It’s not as if Northern Syrians could have stopped the US from planting soldiers
and using an airstrip – there has been a huge war, after all, with a well-heeled army called ISIL to stop.
Let’s also remember that the Northern Syrians work with everybody to fight ISIL in Northern Syria: Russia, the US,
Damascus, Iran, Hezbollah – everyone but Turkey. (Obviously, the US both fights terrorism and supports it.)
Rojavans…it may be now or never to fight for Syrian unity
The invasion by Turkey means Northern Syrians have now reached the point of no return: to work with Turkey (and thus
the US) is to betray the Syrian people which Rojavans have always claimed to want to be.
Therefore, Syria is on the verge of peace and total victory…or major civil war: It will be decided by inter-Syrian diplomacy.
Negotiations have been ongoing between the two areas for years, of course, and they are no doubt in overdrive right now.
The fundamental problem is this: Damascus has always rejected the idea of a federated state and autonomy for Northern
Syria. Northern Syria has held their ground militarily, and Damascus has been too occupied with ISIL to demand
cooperation…but it’s February 2018, and here we are.
So what will Damascus do, and what will Rojava do?
I am not a Syrian, and thus my opinion should be worth very little – the future of Syria is only for Syrians to decide – but to
me it looks like this:
Rojavans may view siding with Damascus as a risk regarding the re-installation of some Arab Nationalist policies they
dislike (Rojava has 3 official languages for a reason, for example)…but siding with the Americans is a guarantee of leftist
betrayal, a guarantee of a failure and a guarantee of regional bloodshed for decades.
Maybe Rojava can expel ISIL on their own, but they cannot expel the US and Turkey without Damascus…and they must
be expelled. How can these troops stay if Damascus and Rojavans cooperate? They cannot, whatever the Pentagon
wants.
Therefore, at some point – a point quite soon – Rojavans will need to openly embrace Damascus, in the name of Syrian
unity and in the realization of issues larger than their own interests and sacrifices.
On the other side, there is nothing stopping Damascus from making concessions to win over Rojava…and yet, one easily
sees the government’s hesitance: Making major changes to Syria’s political structure seems to require the democratic
approval of the entire nation via vote. The granting of wholesale structural changes for one-third of the country during
wartime appears to lack democratic legitimacy.
Rojava is where most of Syria’s oil is located. Certainly, those funds cannot be made the complete “autonomous” property
of Rojavans. One easily sees how “granting autonomy” is a major question that goes beyond just the decades-long
elevation of Arab culture over the culture of Turkmen, Chaldeans, Kurds, etc.….
Of course, it should not be surprising that Assad’s view of Rojava never gets an airing…but given Rojava’s leftist
bonafides, nobody ever talks about them at all either. “Keep ‘em konfused with just ‘Kurds’” is the media line….
To sum up my view of the immediate political situation: Unity requires faith – Northern Syrians need to trust their fellow
citizens that their success has earned them good faith credit in Syria’s common future.
And, finally, what choice does Rojava have? Turkey will never accept them (this is the pretext for their invasion), nor
Damascus, nor Iraq. The only ones who will are the US and Israel…and that is leftist?!?!
No…this is why I predict a reconciliation. The failure of Syrian-Syrian diplomacy at this juncture is…civil war.
And who wants that in Syria?
In an upcoming second article I will examine what is the “leftist ideology” of Rojava, and how these ideas might interact
with Arab Socialist Baathism in a unified, free, victorious state of Syria.
Northern Syria’s leftism explained: a response to Socialist
Arab Nationalism
February 26, 2018
by Ramin Mazaheri
his is the 2nd part of a 3-part series on Northern Syria
The success of Rojava seems to imply that Syrian Baathism needs an ideological updating.
After all, not a single nation supports Rojava, yet their ideology has been so unifying and inspirational that they have been
able to fight off ISIL, the mercenaries of rich countries like the US, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia & Turkey.
There is clearly something there which electrifies the locals into action, and it is up to the entirety of Syria to democratically
decide if they want to preserve it for the future.
(In the previous article of this series – Stop confusing Kurdistans! Syria’s leftists must turn home to Assad – I immediately
make clear that Northern Syrians emphatically do NOT call for independence, but only autonomy.)
I aways thought that the Baathist party was misnamed, mainly for public relations reasons: the “Arab Socialist Baath Party”
is all correct, but they should have put the word “nationalist” in there if they wanted to be completely accurate.
An immediate error will arise if Westerners want to view “Arab nationalism” through their own experiences with nationalism:
One nationalism is the nationalism of colonizers, the other is that of the colonized. To compare the two is to compare
apples and bowling balls.
Interview a range of opinions – whether he be a Syrian fighter newly on his way into Afrin to fight the Turkish invasion, or
a top peace studies institute in the West, and they give the same message of unity as the latter cited in 2013: “Syrian
Kurds view themselves as part of the Syrian state and so there is little support for outright independence or total
autonomy.”
Clearly, nationalism in Syria has been an effective unifier. It has been tested in the crucible of war, and it is on the verge of
victory. The Arab nationalist policies of the Syrian Arab Socialist Baath Party are obviously not the same thing as “White
nationalism” in America, Germany or France.
However, it is taking a Turkish invasion to (I hope) restore the full cooperation between Northern Syria and Damascus
which was severed by foreign terrorists. Those two entities, once united in Syrian nationalism, will certainly be able to expel
the Turkish army and the 2,000 US troops which forced their way into Northern Syria amid war’s chaos.
Paeans to the effectiveness of Syrian nationalism need to be tempered, however, because the existence and success of
the Rojavan holdouts indicate that Baathists need to, and should, end their policies of Arab nationalism in favor of a
broader, more modern and more democratic Syrian nationalism.
Don’t forget: ‘Arab nationalism’ was always something which had to be created
Very few Westerners seem to know this (and virtually none of the journalists and editors), but…Moroccans don’t like to be
called “Arab”. The are certainly not alone in that, despite living in the so-called “Arab world”.
Historically, there is just as much minor resentment towards the 7th century “Arab invasion” in many African nations as
there is among Iranians (who are not ethnically Arab…although that ignores plenty of intermarriage). While Islam is not
resented, many areas still want to preserve parts of their own indigenous culture while remaining within Islam.
This problem also extends to language: Algerians can only barely converse with Arabic speakers from Baghdad. Do I
understand Italian because I speak French and Spanish? Kind of…but not really, and Portuguese is harder. That is a good
comparison for Arabic speakers. If you only speak English you might understand some Dutch, or you might be totally lost.
So we can’t forget that “Arab nationalism” always put the cart before the horse; was always a way for Europeans to classify
the Muslim world from Morocco to Afghanistan; never fulfilled its promise because it was an ideal which promised a lot.
All “Arabs” know that there is no monolithic “Arab world” any more than there is a monolithic “Indian world” or “European
world”. Historically, Socialist Arab Nationalism was indeed a modern, unifying, effective ideology…but it did not create a
grand “unified Arab state”, and attempts at formal international union between nations like Egypt and Syria and Iraq totally
failed.
Remembering this, it becomes understandable why Turkmen, Assyrians and the like in Northern Syria are not 100%
supportive of Arab nationalist cultural policies – they are not 100% Arab. Of course, there has been intermarriage and there
is obvious unity on a nationalist level, but the ethnic groups of Syria have pointedly made ethnic equality a major tenet of
the 3-region area called Rojava.
This is understandable: ethnic equality has been a socialist virtue and mandate for a century. And after some 30 years of
existence, the capitalist world’s “political correctness” has finally joined them on the bandwagon. My point is: ethnic
differences as something to be appreciated is a near-universal idea, finally.
Regardless of how we got to this point of tolerance, the success of Rojava appears to mark the historical end of “Arab
nationalism” – it appears to have outlived its usefulness.
What did it do? It kicked out – not the non-Arabs – but the foreign imperialists (French & English), and that is no small feat.
Often forgotten is that it also kicked out the cultural domination of the Turks (also not Arabs) after four centuries of political
domination.
Arab Nationalism restored local pride, and that was a very necessary thing in the 20th century.
With that necessary cultural and historical preamble out of the way, we can now examine what is Rojava and perceive what
makes it a possible solution to the shortcomings of socialist Arab nationalism.
A fascinating, working leftist project…so of course the West ignores it
What is the political structure and culture of the officially-titled “Democratic Federation of Northern Syria”?
The common term is “democratic federalism”, but another, better term is “libertarian socialism”, yet my personal term is
“local libertarian socialist”, which I will explain later.
What is not a good term, but which is sometimes used as a descriptor, is “confederalism”. A confederation, such as the US
South during the US Civil War, is the opposite of socialist central planning because the central authority is made as weak
as possible. Supporters say it is more democratic, but it is a recipe for economic disaster, regional tribalism and inequality
in 2018. I highly doubt Damascus would accept such a loss of control, especially when Rojava has the majority of Syrian
oil. Northern Syrians themselves have explicitly used the term “Federation” for a reason…and this is another positive
harbinger of unity with Damascus.
How is it fundamentally different from what they had previously, under the Arab Socialist Baath Party?
It is not “Arab nationalism”. Syria is 90% Muslim but only 75% Arab…and the other 25% obviously have some legitimate
grievances over their ethnicities being culturally marginalized. As much as anything, the Rojava project seeks a rebalancing
on this issue, in my opinion. Again, these issues are not genetically racial – due to so much intermarriage – but
ethnic/cultural.
So, for example, one has the right in Rojava to legislate in any of the 3 official languages: Arabic, Syriac and Kurdish.
Arabic is the lingua franca in their 3-district-wide Legislative Council, but all members have the right to propose legislation
and debate in their preferred language. Arabic is no longer elevated above others.
This official linguistic equality should allay one often misreported fear: this is no “Kurd-ization” of Arabs. Indeed, as only a
bit more than half of the population in Northern Syria, that would be an undemocratic recipe for disaster. However, it is
clearly a rejection of a perceived Arabisation of Kurds (and others) which existed before. Their extension of this multicultural
equality into their revamped educational system will obviously have a dramatic cultural impact, over time.
Who supports Rojava?
Nobody – no country has recognised them (LOL, Iranians can sympathise with this, as we were in almost the same
situation for much of the 1980s.) I would say that this informally shows that Rojavans are leftist enough to be viewed as
revolutionary. However, their calls for Syrian nationalist unity must not be forgotten.
But aren’t they working with the US?
Rojavan leaders stress that cooperation with the US is strictly limited to the military, and extensive reports show this is the
case, which is a very big difference from Iraqi Kurdistan. I described their situation – and how they work with all actors,
save Turkey and ISIL – in the previous article.
What is their economic model?
Firstly, this can be a bit difficult to gauge because they are operating in wartime – abnormal conditions reign. But they do
already prevent the rabid price-gouging which can occur during disasters and war, and these price controls indicate that
they are not rabid capitalists. One should look at the US, where CNN defended price-gouging during Hurricane Harvey in
2017, for an indication of what capitalism is and what Rojava is not. Certainly, their ties with the Marxist PKK party in
Turkey (their main ideological comrade) indicate their preferred economic program even more strongly.
What about gender equality?
Like all modern, revolutions – gender equality is a founding tenet. Gender equality was one of the first laws voted by their
Legislative Assembly…the same as in Soviet Russia. This is nothing unexpected.
But since we must go through this again….
If you have heard of Rojava, it is likely in news stories about attractive female Kurdish fighters. That fits into two primary
Western propaganda lines: totally ignoring the gender equality advances which are always promoted in socialist-inspired
countries and which dwarf those in capitalist countries, and it also pushes their absurd, ignorant belief that Islamic
countries mistreat women.
As if on cue, in today ’ s New York Times is: “Women are Free, and Armed, in Kurdish-Controlled Northern Syria”. (The
implication being that women were not “free” before, of course.)
It’s not that I am a fortune-teller – it’s that such propaganda is rampant, inaccurate and boring.
What the Times and other “feminist” capitalists fail to have learned is that in all modern revolutions the women have taken
part in fighting; women fight in the Syrian government’s military, as well; Iranian women became commanders in the Iran-
Iraq war; women fought in Cuba, Vietnam, China, etc. – women kick butt, and modern socialism harnesses their power
more than capitalists ever can.
Furthermore, in any massive modern conflict women play huge and also dangerous parts in the war effort, and to denigrate
that as less than that of their male counterparts is inherently anti-feminist, in my view. You go walk though a minefield to
clear the dead bodies and the wounded and tell me it was a Sunday stroll in the park….
So the idea that Rojavans are somehow “bringing feminism to Syria” is merely typical Western propaganda. It’s antisocialist,
but also a result of their obsession with viewing Muslim women solely via their own Western & capitalist terms –
and obsessions always fail to allow one to see reality accurately.
What is Rojava’s stance on law and order?
This is the most interesting, but it is not at all ew, having been present in China for millennia, is well-documented in Black
Africa, and also in seemingly all aboriginal cultures; it is also quite common-sense, and only “new” to Western societies,
who file lawsuits first, ask questions later and actually desire that their kids to grow up into lawyers.
To resolve disputes there is a communal system of conflict resolution. Neighbourhoods elect a small local “commune”
(Kobani had 2,000 alone), and they address all the complaints…and only IF these communes can’t find a solution, THEN
does it pass into the judicial system. In Kobani only 500 complaints advanced out of 10,000 issues – and only the lawyers
wept.
The cultural implications should be obvious: collective good over personal outrage; cooperation over individualism;
blockchain-like transparency and public diffusion over privacy (indeed, the correlations between blockchain and socialism
merit another article); diplomacy over conflict; bureaucratic clarity instead of inefficiency.
But, as I wrote, communal resolution before taking it to the appointed “elders” is as old as human history…. (Indeed, one
can also view such a system as the pragmatic result of wartime creating a shortage of the civil servants needed to staff a
legal system.)
Who devised Rojava?
The whole darn Southwest Asian area contributed, of course! It’s a popular movement, and is being created daily by men,
women and children of multiple ethnicities and religions. However….
The Western media likes to present Rojava as being the brainchild of a Westerner – Murray Bookchin – who, so the story
goes, gloriously bequeathed some of its key ideologies to Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Ocalan, as the
two corresponded from Ocalan’s Turkish prison.
Of course, the West cannot portray the members of any “Worker’s Party” as having devised a useful ideology….
And, importantly: a non-White person can never be allowed to take credit for a modern ideological advance – there must
be SOME White Westerner who was his mental and moral shepherd! Only White Westerners know what “democracy” is…
even though they’ve never really had it, and even though – as I wrote – this same communal system has been in place
culturally for millennia elsewhere.
And, of course, the enlightenment provided by Bookchin caused Ocalan to totally disregard his own experiences, and
those he shared with other non-White Middle Easterners, because the West has a capitalist “individual hero worship”
instead of a “ People ’ s history ” view. Yawn….more attempted cultural appropriation.
Anyway, Bookchin’s libertarian confederalism is fine for the local level, but Rojavans clearly reject it on the Syrian national
level, as they should. I never saw it, but didn’t confederalism even fail in the Star Wars movies, LOL? Leftist humankind
came up with Rojava – case closed.
Anyway, this hyper-localised governance allows for the effective enforcement of laws against economic monopoly, price
gouging and price fixing. Thus they are anti-capitalist, and not libertarian in the economic sense at all. This is why I prefer
“local libertarian socialist” to describe their structure: their libertarianism is local but not endlessly individualistic (like in, say,
Arizona), and on the larger level they are socialist economically/politically in ideology, structure and practice.
The Rojava area has the majority of Syria’s oil – will the means of oil production become the complete property of the
state?
From what I have understood: the oil is already publicly owned and being watched carefully…but neither is this a primary,
screaming demand. They have other demands: their oil production has been gutted by the war – there are shortages.
Therefore, the main thing is to increase production (growth) so that people don’t freeze. I hate to use terms which socialists
hate, but this is a real socialist project in action, and not an ivory tower. For now, their oil is certainly being shared for the
war effort and among a needy populace.
However, it does not take 100% state ownership of everything in order to be socialist (that’s communism); it certainly takes
just 1% of state-ownership to violate the 2018 definition of “capitalist”.
Given their background, I’m sure the oil will become at least partially state-owned…as it is in every Middle Eastern country.
Of course, this revenue cannot stay only in Rojava but must flow to all Syrians, as I discussed in the previous article. This
is a rather pressing issue already.
Anyway, socialism is a conception which must include both economics and governance, though very few see it that way,
especially capitalists….
What is their view on religion?
They are secular. But…what does that even mean in 2018?
Secular like France? Why don’t you call Charlie Hebdo for clarification on the French model on Christmas Day, when they
are getting a paid day off? Secular like the Soviets? Before or after they razed nearly all their churches and priests?
Secular like modern, non-Western leftists such as Cuba, Vietnam & China, which is really not “secularism” at all?
Clearly, there is plenty of ignorance in the West regarding their own beliefs on “secularism”. There is also plenty of
ignorance regarding the millennia-long religious brotherhood among the Abrahamic religions of Syria which may make it
possible for Westerners to understand the full range of possibilities regarding the interaction of religion and government in
Syria.
So, I will save discussion of religion in Syria for the third and final part of this series.
Part 3 will also discuss how the Syrian conflict may prove to be a continuation of the ongoing historical of trend of Islamic
Socialism, and not Arab Nationalist Socialism, being able to provide the most successful and unifying force for a modern,
free, victorious and predominantly-Muslim country such as Syria.
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily
newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work
has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. He can be reached on
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου