The Plot Thickens: Ghalyoun’s “Ill-Conceived” Statements in the WSJ Interview
►http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3398/the-plot-thickens_ghalyouns-“ill-conceived”-statem
Leaving the problematic statements about Iran and Hizballah aside, in who’s interest is it for the head of the Syrian National Council (SNC) to talk about how the (possible) future Syrian leadership will or will not pursue its right for restoring it’s occupied Golan Heights territory from Israel? Is this what occupies the minds of protesters who are being shot daily by the Syrian regime? Is this something that will give them an edge in their pursuit of their basic political and other rights inside Syria? Even if statements about the Golan are appropriate, why should such declarations let aggressors off the hook so prematurely, so unnecessarily, so irresponsibly, and so recklessly, by emphasizing ill-conceived “liberal” and “feel-good” language? And where did all this positivity suddenly emerge about Syrian-Western relations?
Most importantly, why should the strategies of a potentially democratic Syrian government be announced before the appropriate conditions for such a representative leadership are at hand? What if most Syrian citizens want to keep all options on the table for restoring their land and other rights in the future? On both related counts, Ghalyoun (can we still say “poor Ghalyoun?”) and the Syrian National Council sound very much like the Syrian regime: They are both (practically, in the case of the Syrian regime) giving up certain options for restoring occupied Syrian land, and they are both less concerned with the democratic process. Even the enemies of the Syrian people and Syrian rights are baffled, if pleased, at this seeming “political immaturity,” to use a euphemism.