Ayoon Wa Azan (Freedom Does Not Equate To Stubbornness)

For five years or so, I have been voicing my support here in this column for the Iranian nuclear program, especially the military aspect of it to produce a nuclear weapon, if there indeed is one. And a few days ago, I objected to arming the Syrian opposition. I have supported the Iranian nuclear program because Israel has a confirmed nuclear arsenal. Nonetheless, I also proposed that all the Arab countries must seek to acquire nuclear weapons, because the proliferation of nuclear armaments in the Middle East would drive the United States and both eastern and western powers to rally to render the region a WMD-free zone. Only then will we be safe from Israel’s arsenal, and from what Iran may resolve to procure in the future. Meanwhile, my opinion was that arming the Syrian opposition would increase the killings many times over, with the opposition facing a large regular army and brutal security serves. Instead, I proposed Arab military intervention in Syria with the help of Turkey alone, while I rejected any American role because it would be for the benefit of Israel, and there is a lesson for us all in the tragedy of the invasion of Iraq. But this proposal is rejected by the Syrian regime, which condemns anyone demanding it. Incidentally, since the beginning of the uprising against the regime, I have not contacted in any way, whether directly or indirectly, any Syrian official in Damascus or abroad. I do not insist that my opinion is the absolute truth, but I insist on my right to express it. Both my stances on the Iranian bomb and arming the Syrian opposition contradict with basic declared policies by all Arab countries. Yet a reader hiding behind a ‘code name’ claims that I am the voice, or the echo, of presidents, kings, sultans and sheikhs. I even find journalists and writers who advocate for democracy every day, and yet they contradict this as soon as they read a dissenting opinion, while all their involvement with this issue is no more than the fact that they sat at a café with colleagues a thousand kilometers from Homs, and decided that they alone possess the undisputed truth. This is although they hold no special or direct information about the Syrian regime and the opposition, but hold just their cups of coffee. One of the most important professional features of Al-Hayat is that it is free and independent. I do not write this because it is my newspaper but because it is a fact, and no one can impose on the paper what it should publish or not publish. Indeed, this has been the policy of the publisher since day one and up to this very day, and we have paid a high price for this by seeing our newspaper being banned, time after time. But freedom does not equate to stubbornness. After the situation progressively deteriorated in Syria and the pace of daily killings increased, I noticed that I was receiving constant messages from pro-opposition individuals accusing me of ignoring Syria. In the beginning, I denied this, but then I began having doubts that I may be wrong and that the pro-opposition readers may be right. And so it was that I spent last week with the computer, and I printed everything I wrote about Egypt since November 2010 and Syria since early last April. I found that I wrote about 20 articles on Egypt alone, and a similar number on Syria. Then there were about 25 articles that included references to the developments in both countries, in addition to other Arab countries. I keep all these articles, and any interested reader researching the subject can visit me in my office and I will hand him a copy of them, and perhaps he would find them useful. The common denominator among the articles on Syria is that in all of them, without any exception, I objected to the security-based approach and the killing of the protesters, which I condemned and called a failure; my condemnation then only intensified with the sustained killings. The first article was entitled “Manaf’s Account”: I was in Kuwait, and found that brother Manaf, who was in charge of my visit, was from Deraa, and he told me the details of what had happened, and the names of those who were killed including some of his classmates. He also drew a map of the town from the border area which the people know to the old town and the valley in between. The first of the last two articles, which were published in two days in a row, spoke about the Syrians being caught between the killings (by the security services) and ignorance, while I praised two women from the opposition who are Bassma Kodmani and Rima Fuleihan. And between the first and last articles, I addressed the Syrian President, and told him literally, “You, Dr. Bashar, are responsible”. I then repeated this in a subsequent article, and said that the President alone was responsible for the situation (21/6/2011 and 17/10/2011), and also said and say it again today: May God help the Syrians. I appreciate very well that Syrian readers may rise in the morning fearing that they may have lost a relative or a friend, and so want to read nothing except about Syria’s incidents. However, the newspaper does not belong to them alone, but to all readers in all countries. I will not claim today, and I have never claimed this anyway, that I write inspired by my conscience, morality or religiousness. I only say that I try to write objectively, but my opinion is not divine revelation, and is rather an educated judgment that may be mistaken or may be on the mark, with the intent being honest and true.