The Ba’ath regime did not fight its opponents as individuals or political movements, but rather as groups, using the same pretext: protecting the state, preserving unity, and safeguarding sovereignty, The result was a state weakened from within, a fractured society, and an authority that thrived only on fear. Even more dangerous was that this regime, which claimed to be hostile to Israel, was in practice one of the regimes that provided it with the safest and most stable borders, while the true “enemy” in its rhetoric was the Syrian people themselves.
Today, the names change, but the equation remains the same. Israel is not seeking a strong and cohesive Syrian state, but rather a fragile, vulnerable entity whose borders are tightly controlled and whose society is left to disintegrate from within, In this context, the choice of forces with a history of transnational jihad is not a trivial detail, The Nusra Front, regardless of its name changes and rhetoric, remains under a leadership with a well-known history of ties to al-Qaeda. This history is not forgotten, nor can it be erased by political maneuvering; rather, it remains a readily available bargaining chip to be used whenever regional and international powers deem it necessary.
Today, you hold accountable and punish all those who do not submit to the de facto authority you have imposed, and you consider any dissent as treason, secession, or a threat to security. But the fundamental question you evade is: Who holds you accountable? Who reviews the actions you have taken and the violations committed in the name of the “transitional phase”? Any authority without an accountability mechanism inevitably becomes absolute power, and absolute power does not create a state, but rather reproduces tyranny, no matter how the slogans change.
What you are doing today is not “postponing wars,” but rather directly opening the door to confrontation among Syrians, You are pushing society toward a full-blown internal conflict, where violence is being redistributed instead of being ended, Those whom Assad did not kill during his years in power may be killed now in what you call a transitional phase—not because it is a transition toward a state, but because it is a transition from one form of tyranny to chaos disguised as legitimacy.
A state is not built by defining “patriotism” to suit the ruling power, nor by dividing Syrians into loyalists and suspects, nor by reproducing the logic of dominance,A state is built when the gates of bloodshed are closed, not when they are flung wide open in the name of security, the current phase, or necessity. Unless you abandon this path, you will not be a bridge to a new Syria, but rather another link in the chain of destruction.
This is not an emotional speech or a moralizing sermon, but a clear political warning: the path you are on is known, and its end is known. Syria cannot tolerate a new version of Ba’athism, nor a Ba’athism cloaked in religious or transitional garb.
With this exclusionary language you are using today against entire segments of Syrian society, you are reproducing the most dangerous phenomenon the country has witnessed in its modern history,When the entire Alawite community is reduced to the accusation of being “remnants of the old regime,” the Druze in Suwaida are labeled as “followers of the old regime,” and the Kurds are portrayed as “separatist SDF,” we are not facing a transitional administration, but rather a logic of collective punishment that is no different in essence from what the Ba’athist regime practiced for decades.