The Syrian regime responded to the Hamas initiative to restore relations with it by attacking it in the media by officials and those close to it, while the official side has remained silent so far, in striking references to its conservative position.
While Hamas’ justifications for returning to this relationship at this particular time are well known, and have been circulated on more than one level, this article attempts to read the Syrian position, although it may develop over the course of the days, and result in a relationship of some kind, which may not meet what the movement aspires to. Hamas, in light of the negative responses of the regime's mouthpieces so far.
The Syrian regime is no longer standing on the same ground that it was standing on before the Syrian revolution. It is a crumbling regime that is trying to establish its foundations on the ground, in light of the loss of control over large areas of its land, and the presence of a large percentage of Syrians that do not accept it, whether in areas not under its control or Even those that fall under his rule.
Attack and accusations
It is noteworthy that the one who started the attack early on Hamas, and even before it officially announced its desire to restore the relationship, is Bashar al-Assad’s political and media advisor, Buthaina Shaaban, who published an article in the (semi-official) Al-Watan newspaper following the recent Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip. Hamas betrayed the resistance and responded to the aggression with statements," ignoring the role played by Hamas in supplying the "Jihad Movement" - which fought this round with the occupation - with weapons, logistical aid and other things!
Surprisingly, these words come from a regime that is already unable to defend itself against the continuous Israeli attacks on its lands and airports, adhering to the saying, "We reserve the right to respond in a timely manner!"
The newspaper took advantage of Shaaban's statements, to the extent of accusing Hamas' positions in the recent war, "as if it were an echo of (Israeli Defense Minister) Benny Gantz's statements, which revealed that the occupation entity was able to implement its plans to excluding the resistance."
She claimed that Israel's success in this scheme "came through what Hamas had done through its abandonment of the resistance and its refusal to enter into confrontation with the Israeli entity, at the expense of the blood of the Palestinians and the destruction of their homes and properties!"
After Hamas announced - in its last statement a few days ago - its decision to restore relations with Syria, a member of the Syrian People's Assembly, Khaled Al-Aboud, who is one of the most important people close to the Syrian regime, considered that the decision came as a result of what he called the fall of a very big project, accusing the Arab Spring of being a conspiracy. .
He added - referring to Hamas - "The project (the Arab Spring) has fallen and its owners have been defeated, and its advocates and theorists have failed. Their senses today, as some of us are trying to lighten the weight of the earthquake, or that their estimates were wrong, as we said earlier, in the context of political talk, but it is the truth that we must not hide from you, and it is not hidden from you.
He described Hamas leaders as being "at the gates of the immigrant palace, the Qatar regime that sold the Brotherhood and their families, and Erdogan, who begs for forgiveness for what happened, to save the might of his sultan," he said.
In another article by a writer named Firas Aziz Deeb - also mentioned in the (semi-governmental) newspaper Al-Watan - he repeated the same statement by the previous writer in his interpretation of what he called Hamas' turn, in a striking match that indicates that it is a letter from a country where there is no other opinion, and in which there is no Opinions other than what the head of the system says.
The writer limited the resistance to a country called Syria, trying to deny this characteristic of Hamas, as it belongs to the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, according to his claim.
Why this reply?
The Syrian regime is no longer standing on the same ground that it was standing on before the Syrian revolution. It is a crumbling regime that is trying to establish its foundations on the ground, in light of the loss of control over large areas of its land, and the presence of a large percentage of Syrians that do not accept it, whether in areas not under its control or Even those that fall under his rule.
The isolation of this regime based on the rule of a sectarian minority has increased, after the massacres and atrocities it committed - and continues to commit - against the defenseless Syrian people, in addition to its Arab, regional and international isolation.
A United Nations report published on March 18, 2022 says that, "Since the outbreak of the conflict, more than half of the population that was in the country before the war has been displaced, hundreds of thousands have been killed, Syrian cities and infrastructure have been destroyed, and what remains are weak health facilities in the face of the pandemic. More Of the 90% of the population who remain inside the country living in poverty, 12 million people are food insecure, and an unprecedented number of people (14.6 million people) are in need of humanitarian assistance.”
In addition, the Syrian people suffer from rampant corruption, and the domination of a limited group of people, while protests are increasing against the difficult economic conditions and the sharp rise in prices in a way that exceeds the citizen's ability to purchase basic commodities and fuel.
In addition to the regime's preoccupation with itself, and its inability to respond to the Israeli strikes, it is seeking to rehabilitate it at the Arab level and at the level of the relationship with Turkey, while it still has a long way to go to qualify internationally.
While he is subject to Iran's penetrating pressures in the country, he is trying to balance the relationship with it, and to obtain the requirements for Arab and international qualification.
This situation does not make the regime eligible for the level of resistance it was in before the revolution, as it - unlike its Iranian ally - does not see an interest in distinguished relations with Hamas, which is placed on international terrorist lists, and fighting by some regimes that seek to rehabilitate it (the UAE, for example), nor He wants to increase the justifications for targeting him by Israel, or targeting cadres of Hamas on his land if he opens the scene for them, because if this happens, he will be in a very weak position.
In addition to all that, this regime still views with hostility the Arab Spring and the Muslim Brotherhood, intersecting with many Arab regimes.
Therefore, we find him in the speeches of his mentors book attacking what he calls the “Brotherhood” of Hamas, and going to attack those who made the decision to leave Syria in 2012, led by the movement’s leader abroad, Khaled Mashaal, simply because this leadership refused to sacrifice its reputation and side with him, and decided instead to take sides. of peoples in their struggle for freedom.
It is clear that Iran is gentle in pressuring the Syrian regime to achieve the relationship, because it, too, is concerned with stabilizing and qualifying the regime.
Therefore, his attack on Hamas and repelling its demand for the relationship aims to convey a message to the Hamas leadership, that it is not encouraged by the relationship this movement is seeking, by attacking its positions and bias (the Brotherhood), and perhaps more than that, revenge and extortion of concessions from it, which he is known for as an expert, And the owner of a long breath in the procrastination in the negotiations.
Limited form of relationship
The regime’s book clearly expressed this. On September 19, the previously mentioned Al-Watan editorial stated that “the Syrian state is not in the process of refusing or accepting the restoration of relations with Hamas, because the latter is not a state to exchange ambassadors with, but rather is just an organization that must Looking at it from that door no more."
She stressed that "if someone in this organization decides to visit Syria, its doors are open to anyone who presents himself as a resistance, not someone who trades in the file of the resistance." !
Another writer said, "The road to Damascus is clear, and it does not require mediation with the people and leadership of Syria, but only two words!!??" He means by that an apology for what Damascus says was interference by Hamas and its support for the revolutionaries, which Hamas denies.
Consequently, the conclusion of the Syrian regime's position is to be slow in completing any relationship with Hamas, while making this relationship undistinguished and minimal if it were to take place.
He also does not want this relationship to have any real weight for the movement, such as making Damascus a headquarters state, or even opening offices for it similar to what exists in Turkey, Qatar and others. It also prohibits it from engaging in any military activity against the occupier from Syria, specifically from the Golan front. .
Those close to Iran and Hezbollah, and familiar with their mediation efforts with the Syrian regime, confirm that the President of the Syrian regime, Bashar al-Assad, demands that this relationship be launched at the highest level, so that he meets with high-ranking leaders of Hamas (according to what was stated in an interview with Abdel Bari Atwan). and Nasser Qandil on Al-Mayadeen TV, September 18), at the same time, when they are talking about a low level of relationship that Damascus wants with Hamas, which means that Bashar’s regime wants a big media shot with the leadership of the Palestinian resistance, which will constitute a popular gain for it. Internally and externally without providing the benefits required for such a relationship.
Without a doubt, Iran and Hezbollah are interested in advancing the relationship with the two parties, but the regime's calculations make it discouraged for a relationship of weight, which makes the value of the relationship for Hamas is to serve its relationship with Iran, without it being able to achieve strategic achievements as it hopes, as long as This system cannot be classified as a reluctance system as it was previously.
Therefore, the mediation of Iran and Hezbollah may succeed in achieving some progress, such as Bashar’s meeting with leaders of Hamas, but this may not exceed at the current stage the media and photo taking, which is a great price that Hamas may pay in terms of its standing and popularity in exchange for seemingly limited achievements.