Ever since militarization set itself as one of the distinctive character of the Syrian uprising, the fragmentation of the revolution has continued unabated. When Sheikh Moaz al-Khatib, a respected opposition member and former head of the Syrian National Coalition, presented a radically different vision of the solution for Syria’s crisis in his latest speech, the responses on social media were very telling.
The statement, which came at the end of the month of Ramadan, saw a scathing attack on both, accusing the regime of brutal tyranny and the opposition of being hostages to outside interests. Al-Khatib called for a compromise solution in Syria that would exclude both parties from power, and would see a technocratic government leading the transition.
Commentaries, indignant and supportive alike, came thick and fast the minute al-Khatib finished his speech. There was widespread recognition of his courage in approaching the Syrian issue politically and beyond the dichotomy of loyalists and opposition. Talal al-Mehiny, editor-in-chief of Delta Noun magazine commended al-Khatib on his courage saying: “There are many good men in Syria, but only few with the courage of Moaz al-Khatib. I expect that he will certainly be subjected to converted campaigns full of vitriol and accusations of treason, but this will only lead to even more bloodshed.”
Several commentators however felt that the initiative offers very little beyond impressive rhetorics. The main question was: what kind of material support does this initiative bring to be able to force the regime to even entertain such compromise?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbnROgLQuGg
A Syrian scholar, who prefers to stay anonymous, said to SyriaUntold in an interview: “The approach is commendable for its courageousness, but it is also far removed from the reality on the ground. This is very telling of the crisis in the opposition that after three and a half years they still can not relate to the suffering of the people.” According to the scholar, “al-Khatib’s initiative is nothing but an attempt to score political points and can not be applied. The opposition still believes that the crisis can be solved in amicable manner while the regime will entertain nothing but a complete military triumph.”
In contrast, several writers and activists feel that there is more than meets the eye to al-Khatib’s initiative, and especially its timing. Nael al-Hariri speculated that the speech comes as a trial balloon for a larger political settlement that is being prepared.
On the other hand, many Syrians felt betrayed by al-Khatib’s talk of a political settlement at a time when civilians are still being murdered by Assad’s barrel bombs on a daily basis, and at a time when the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is expanding ever more. In her way of mocking the speech, prominent activist Marcel Shehwaro sarcastically applauded al-Khatib’s sense of initiative but warned him from “getting ahead of himself.”
Moaz al-Khatib’s initiative comes at a time where the Syrian revolution finds itself at an important crossroads, and surrounded by enemies from Assad to ISIS. Without judging the substance of the initiative, it may have already succeeded in one of its main aims: to bring politics back.
