Isil and Al Nusra Front are acting as clones of the Syrian regime

Isil and Al Nusra Front are trying to act as the clones of the Syrian regime by imposing their will, writes Ahmad Bin Salem. Other views: Israeli defence minister castigated for telling the truth (Al Khaleej) and Hariri trial will bring justice (Ali Hamade)

Powered by automated translation

Ahmad Bin Salem, columnist for the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat, looks into the situation between the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) and the Al Nusra Front in Syria, because “Isil is now trying to act as the clone of the Syrian regime, imposing its will and vision on the Syrian people and hold the reigns of power”.

Ever since it entered the arena, Isil imposed its control on some liberated areas, forcefully applying Sharia, proceeding to the expiation of those with differing views and shedding the blood of those who did not comply with its orders. By killing, abducting and intimidating journalists, activists and members of rival factions, Isil embarked on an open war with the Free Syrian Army and other Islamist factions, one of which is the Al Nusra Front.

“This resulted in a revolution within the revolution” Bin Salem said, “Al Nusra wishes to return the country to its righteous owners, and put an end to tyranny and abuse.” Isil became the sworn enemy of most factions and militias in Syria, who joined forces to fight against it alongside the Free Syrian Army.

The Syrian opposition, both political and military, is theoretically and practically aware of the differences between Al Nusra and Isil in matters of approach, vision and methodology. “Al Nusra is now perceived as a ‘modern’ faction of Al Qaeda that combines religious and national goals, whereas Isil is the traditional heir of the movement, seeking to achieve a ‘global victory’,” Bin Salem explained.

In the situation at hand and under the present conditions of the revolution, there are three methods to adopt vis-à-vis Al Nusra.

One can consider the conflict as essentially being with the current regime and then with Al Nusra, envisaging to deal with it on a political front so long as it does not turn its weapons against the armed factions fighting the regime or invade liberated areas. This option seems to be compatible with the revolution.

Alternatively, one can consider the conflict with Al Nusra to be as existential as the one with the regime, and lead a simultaneous battle on both fronts. This comes across as irrational with regards to overthrowing the regime and would turn it into an armed enemy of the future Syrian state.

On another note, one can consider the conflict with Al Nusra to be fundamental. This would imply forgetting about overthrowing the Assad regime and declaring the end of the revolution – the ultimate choice for enemies of the revolution.

If one should dismiss the third option and the second option seems irrational, then the only viable option is the first. Should circumstances change and bring about a face-to-face between Al Nusra and various resistance groups, “all we can do is take a stand and condemn any excesses that may darken the future of the revolution and that of the Syrian people”, concluded Bin Salem.

Israel defence minister is speaking the truth

Israeli war minister Moshe Yaalon stirred controversy earlier this week when he criticised US Secretary of State John Kerry’s quest to Israeli-Palestinian peace. In a private conversation, he reportedly said the proposed American plan for security arrangements “isn’t worth the paper it was written on”. His comments were met with anger and he later had to apologise to the US diplomat.

The Israeli minister’s statements in fact represent the Israeli position in its integrity, said the Sharjah-based daily Al Khaleej in its editorial on Thursday. All other statements are strictly PR talk meant to polish Israel’s image in the world’s public opinion.

Mr Yaalon frankly announced that Israel’s security can only be achieved if Israeli troops were to remain in the West Bank and at the Jordan River. This means negotiations over contentious issues such as settlements, Jerusalem, Palestinian statehood and the right to return is void and unacceptable to anyone in Israel, the paper remarked.

“Mr Yaalon isn’t the only Israeli official to take these positions, but he is the least afraid to declare them,” the paper added.

It is unlikely that the incident would lead to a strain in the US-Israeli relationship. Washington and Tel Aviv are strategic allies and would not forsake one another. “What’s important,” the paper noted, “is that Palestinians themselves believe Mr Yaalon and stop wagering on a different US position.”

Court for Lebanon is finally set in motion

Yesterday marked the start of the trials of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon that will be investigating the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafic Hariri and other related assassinations.

Writing from the opening trial in The Hague for the Lebanese daily Annahar, the columnist Ali Hamade said: “Today is a day for martyrs and their families. Today justice is served. On this day assassins shouldn’t feel so powerful, even if they refuse to hand in suspects and go as far as sanctifying them.”

The UN-backed court indicted in 2011 four members of Hizbollah over involvement in the assassination, with a fifth member being accused last year of complicity in the killing. Hizbollah refused to hand any of them in for prosecution. The STL trials are held in absentia.

“Justice is slow but, similar to a roller, once it is set in motion, nothing can stand in its way,” he added. Almost nine years after Hariri’s assassination and after many battles with the tribunal’s opponents, justice can finally take its course albeit with an empty defendant dock.

“It is certain, though, that in the end, Hizbollah and the Syrian regime will be in the suspects stand. This is what facts are revealing one day after the other,” he concluded.

* Digest compiled by The Translation Desk

translation@thenational.ae