WHEN the veteran British journalist Robert Fisk who works for American ABC television was asked about developments in Halab, he said a female friend had told him that her friend contacted her from Halab and it was difficult to hear her voice, not because of the sounds of gunfire but because of music in the restaurant from where she was talking.
By making this comment, he means regime forces are still in control of the city center and life in the city is quite normal contrary to pictures and reports of people fleeing the city where the biggest battle in the history of Syria revolution is currently taking place.
Naturally, this could be a meaningless talk. But Fisk has the freedom to investigate, which he was doing from the beginning of the revolution to find out the signs of support for Assad regime in the country, and whether the Syrian uprising was the work of Salafist and Al-Qaeda groups supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The ground reality is more important than the comments of these journalists who side with the regime. The world will see Halab falling into the hands of revolutionists after regime forces being crushed. These forces will also be tracked and besieged in Damascus leading to the regime’s fall without any return. These are ground facts and developments that reflect the desire of the majority of Syrians and this is not a Saudi or Western project.
What was written by Mshari Al-Zaydi on Tuesday about Patrick Seale is also correct as the British journalist is likely to remain as a soft supporter of Assad regime but would not be a diehard supporter like others.
Seale, an expert on Syria and the rule of the Assad family, wrote last Friday in London-based newspaper Al-Hayat about challenges facing the warring factions in Syria. He criticized President Bashar Assad for being slow to reform and for solely using security clampdowns.
“But the Syrian revolution went beyond this option a long time ago — those who call for reforms are no longer critics of the Syrian regime,” Al-Zaydi wrote in his column.
What has happened in our region is very big, bigger than our present capability to understand its dimensions. Drastic changes have taken place in the Arab world, removing prominent figures from power and changing existing slogans.
For people like Samir Qentar to writer Adonis, artist Raghda, leaders of parties and cultural and media organizations, to Western journalists, new events came as a big surprise. Some of them have rejected it while some others have accepted.
There are people who try to get hold of the present following modern standards like Muslim Brotherhood. Some others have revised their views and accepted the new Arab world and they are the majority. Yet there are spectators who sit in their old places like Seale and Fisk as if Assad would last forever.
It is strange that some Western media persons, writers and intellectuals uphold their old stances. I don’t think these people do not know the reality of Syrian revolution. I am sure that most of them know the undercurrents better than Arabs. Then I don’t know why they are still supporting the regime. Are they victims of their long personal and official relationships? May be. Or have they become part of the old culture, and unable to forget their past, the past of Assad, Qaddafi and Nasrallah.
Since the beginning of the crisis last year the Syrian regime had tried to win the support of Western journalists in order to avoid the repetition of Libya scenario. Bashar believed that he could crush the revolution as long as the West abstains from military intervention. This actually gave him long life and helped in prolonging the crisis. But the power of his Western media friends like Fisk and Seale and public relations companies that support the regime are running out of fuel. Their role is very limited in the face of a flood of reports and opinions expressed by other Western writers and reporters who went to the dangerous battle zones inside Syria, endangering their lives or followed the crisis contacting refugees and aid workers. These are the people who report the truth on the ground, irrespective of their views on the reason behind the revolution.
