تفاجئ سوريا العالم كل يوم بسرعة تحركها السياسي وانفتاحها على مصالحها العظمى فقط، سوريا فهمت عزلتها وغرقها في وحل قضايا المنطقة بسبب النظام السابق وخياراته الغريبة.
فالنظام السابق وعلى مدى خمسة عقود ادعى دعم القضية الفلسطينية، وجعلها قضيته المركزية، وزايد عليها، بينما لم تكن سوى شماعة يضع عليها رداءه المبتل آخر الليل.
كان لا يؤمن بوجود فلسطين بالأساس، ومدعياً دعم العرب، وهو يتحالف إستراتيجياً مع كل الشعوبيين حول الإقليم العربي، كان يدّعي محاربة إسرائيل، لكنه فعل كل شيء إلا العداء لها، نعم قام ببعض الاشتباكات الصورية لبناء تكتيكات مصلحية مؤقتة، بل الكثير من المراقبين شككوا دائماً في الحروب التي خاضها النظام ضد تل أبيب، وهي وإن حصلت لكنها لا تتعدّى الحصول على مكاسب عند القوى العظمى، وترسيخ وجود النظام داخل المجتمعات العربية داخل سوريا وخارجها، خوفاً من لفظه ذات يوم، وهو ما حصل لاحقاً.
اللقاءات التي يتحدث عنها الإعلام- مؤخراً- بين وفود سورية وإسرائيلية، ليست الأولى، فقد شارك النظام السابق في مؤتمر مدريد للسلام عام 1991، كما انضم وفده المفاوض إلى الاجتماعات الثنائية المباشرة -بعد انتهاء المؤتمر العام- مع إسرائيل إضافة إلى الوفد الأردني الفلسطيني المشترك، وكذلك لبنان.
تلك لم تكن مداولات السلام الأولى بين العرب وإسرائيل، فقد سبقت مصر الجميع (1978) بعقد اتفاقية كامب ديفيد التي أسفرت عن مشروع سلام منفرد مع إسرائيل بعد خمس سنوات من حرب أكتوبر 73 التي شاركت فيها سوريا في محاولة منها لاسترداد الجولان.
مشكلة اتفاقيات السلام العربية الإسرائيلية، أن معظم من وقع يزايد على من لم يوقع، وهم لا يريدون أن ينضم غيرهم إلى أي اتفاقات سلام، ويدعون أن تجربتهم فاشلة في السلام مع إسرائيل، لكن أيّاً منهم لم يُلغِ تلك الاتفاقيات، دافعين الآخرين لرفض السلام ويطالبون الجميع بدفع الفواتير بدلاً عنهم.
السوريون اليوم يرون أن بعض مكوّناتهم العرقية والدينية تكاد تتفلت من بين يدي الدولة المركزية، وربما تنسلخ منها تماماً باتجاه علاقة مع إسرائيل.
لكن أحداً من المزايدين العرب لا ينصح الدروز على اندفاعهم، بل يهاجمون الدولة السورية ويتهمونها بكل شيء، مع أن العلاقة التفاوضية بين دمشق وتل أبيب، علاقة ند لند، وليست علاقة أفراد من طائفة تبدّل ملفاتها وهوياتها وحتى انتماءها العربي عمالة لإسرائيل.
نحن أمام حالة من اختيار المصالح العظمى يؤسسها السوريون، وكأنهم يقولون لكل المزايدين وحتى المراقبين: «سوريا أولاً، ومصالحها الوطنية اليوم أهم من الجميع»، وهو مبدأ تأسس منذ عقود لكن أحداً لم يجرؤ على الإفصاح عنه.
سوريا اليوم تكاد تلغي بتصرفاتها السياسية الواقعية هامش المزايدة الذي كان منتشراً بكثافة في العالم العربي منذ ولادة القضية الفلسطينية 1948، حتى السابع من أكتوبر الذي يعد مفصلاً تاريخياً له ما قبله، وله أيضا ما بعده.
مزايدة استعان بها الكثير في خصوماتهم ضد دول تعاملت بواقعية مع قضية الشعب الفلسطيني، ولأجلها ارتفعت بندقية لا تطلق الرصاص إلا على أبنائها أو الدول العربية الأخرى، واحتلت تحت اسمها الكويت، ولبنان، ووُجّه إعلام الشتائم إلى الدول العربية وشعوبها تحت مُسمّى نصرة فلسطين، حتى الدول التي بذلت كل جهودها السياسية وأموالها لدعم القضية الفلسطينية، لم تسلم من المزايدات والاتهامات، وعند أول منعطف حقيقي انقلبت عليها دول الطوق ودول الضد الماهرة جداً في المزايدات.
دمشق في موقف إستراتيجي صلب، فلبنان الذي كان خاصرة رخوة لطالما خشي منها النظام السابق لم يعد موجوداً كدولة مهددة، والقوى الفلسطينية التي شاركت في قتل السوريين- خلال الثورة- هي من قوّض القضية باندفاع السابع من أكتوبر، ولعل الجميع يتذكر أن الفلسطينيين كانوا ثاني من وقّع مع إسرائيل في اتفاقيات أوسلو، وتتالت بعض الدول العربية في طريق العلاقة مع الإسرائيليين؛ ولذلك ترى دمشق أنها ليست استثناءً من طريق السلام الذي بدأ العام 1978 ولم يتخلَّ عنه أحد ممن سلكه حتى الآن.
محمد الساعد
المصالح قبل الشعارات.. الدرس السوري الجديد..!
1 سبتمبر 2025 - 00:01
|
آخر تحديث 1 سبتمبر 2025 - 00:01
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
Syria surprises the world every day with the speed of its political movements and its openness to its supreme interests only. Syria has understood its isolation and its sinking into the quagmire of regional issues due to the previous regime and its strange choices.
The previous regime, for five decades, claimed to support the Palestinian cause, making it its central issue and exaggerating its importance, while it was nothing more than a cloak to cover its wet garment at the end of the night.
It did not believe in the existence of Palestine at all, while claiming to support the Arabs, and it strategically allied with all the populists around the Arab region. It claimed to fight Israel, but it did everything except oppose it. Yes, it engaged in some symbolic clashes to build temporary tactical interests, and many observers have always doubted the wars the regime fought against Tel Aviv. Although they occurred, they were merely aimed at gaining advantages with the great powers and solidifying the regime's presence within Arab societies inside and outside Syria, out of fear of being expelled one day, which eventually happened.
The meetings recently discussed in the media between Syrian and Israeli delegations are not the first; the previous regime participated in the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991, and its negotiating delegation joined direct bilateral meetings—after the general conference ended—with Israel, in addition to the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation, as well as Lebanon.
These were not the first peace negotiations between Arabs and Israel; Egypt preceded everyone in 1978 by signing the Camp David Accords, which resulted in a separate peace project with Israel after five years of the October War '73, in which Syria participated in an attempt to regain the Golan Heights.
The problem with the Arab-Israeli peace agreements is that most of those who signed them are competing with those who did not, and they do not want anyone else to join any peace agreements. They claim that their experience with peace with Israel has failed, yet none of them has canceled those agreements, pushing others to reject peace and demanding that everyone else pay the bills instead of them.
Today, Syrians see that some of their ethnic and religious components are almost slipping from the hands of the central state, and may completely detach from it in favor of a relationship with Israel.
However, none of the Arab competitors advise the Druze on their impulsiveness; instead, they attack the Syrian state and accuse it of everything, even though the negotiating relationship between Damascus and Tel Aviv is one of equals, not a relationship of individuals from a sect that changes its files, identities, and even its Arab affiliation to serve Israel.
We are facing a situation of choosing supreme interests established by the Syrians, as if they are saying to all the competitors and even the observers: "Syria first, and its national interests today are more important than anyone else's," a principle that has been established for decades but no one has dared to express it.
Today, Syria is almost eliminating the margin of competition that has been widespread in the Arab world since the birth of the Palestinian cause in 1948, up until October 7, which is a historical turning point that has its before and after.
This competition has been used by many in their disputes against countries that dealt realistically with the Palestinian people's issue, and for it, a rifle was raised that only fires at its own people or other Arab countries, and under its name, Kuwait and Lebanon were occupied, while the media of insults was directed at Arab countries and their peoples under the pretext of supporting Palestine. Even the countries that exerted all their political efforts and funds to support the Palestinian cause were not spared from competition and accusations, and at the first real turning point, the surrounding countries and the highly skilled opposing countries in competition turned against them.
Damascus is in a solid strategic position; Lebanon, which was a soft flank that the previous regime always feared, no longer exists as a threatening state, and the Palestinian forces that participated in killing Syrians during the revolution are the ones that undermined the cause with the momentum of October 7. Perhaps everyone remembers that the Palestinians were the second to sign with Israel in the Oslo Accords, and some Arab countries followed suit in their relationship with the Israelis; thus, Damascus sees itself as not an exception to the path of peace that began in 1978 and from which no one who has taken it has deviated until now.
The previous regime, for five decades, claimed to support the Palestinian cause, making it its central issue and exaggerating its importance, while it was nothing more than a cloak to cover its wet garment at the end of the night.
It did not believe in the existence of Palestine at all, while claiming to support the Arabs, and it strategically allied with all the populists around the Arab region. It claimed to fight Israel, but it did everything except oppose it. Yes, it engaged in some symbolic clashes to build temporary tactical interests, and many observers have always doubted the wars the regime fought against Tel Aviv. Although they occurred, they were merely aimed at gaining advantages with the great powers and solidifying the regime's presence within Arab societies inside and outside Syria, out of fear of being expelled one day, which eventually happened.
The meetings recently discussed in the media between Syrian and Israeli delegations are not the first; the previous regime participated in the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991, and its negotiating delegation joined direct bilateral meetings—after the general conference ended—with Israel, in addition to the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation, as well as Lebanon.
These were not the first peace negotiations between Arabs and Israel; Egypt preceded everyone in 1978 by signing the Camp David Accords, which resulted in a separate peace project with Israel after five years of the October War '73, in which Syria participated in an attempt to regain the Golan Heights.
The problem with the Arab-Israeli peace agreements is that most of those who signed them are competing with those who did not, and they do not want anyone else to join any peace agreements. They claim that their experience with peace with Israel has failed, yet none of them has canceled those agreements, pushing others to reject peace and demanding that everyone else pay the bills instead of them.
Today, Syrians see that some of their ethnic and religious components are almost slipping from the hands of the central state, and may completely detach from it in favor of a relationship with Israel.
However, none of the Arab competitors advise the Druze on their impulsiveness; instead, they attack the Syrian state and accuse it of everything, even though the negotiating relationship between Damascus and Tel Aviv is one of equals, not a relationship of individuals from a sect that changes its files, identities, and even its Arab affiliation to serve Israel.
We are facing a situation of choosing supreme interests established by the Syrians, as if they are saying to all the competitors and even the observers: "Syria first, and its national interests today are more important than anyone else's," a principle that has been established for decades but no one has dared to express it.
Today, Syria is almost eliminating the margin of competition that has been widespread in the Arab world since the birth of the Palestinian cause in 1948, up until October 7, which is a historical turning point that has its before and after.
This competition has been used by many in their disputes against countries that dealt realistically with the Palestinian people's issue, and for it, a rifle was raised that only fires at its own people or other Arab countries, and under its name, Kuwait and Lebanon were occupied, while the media of insults was directed at Arab countries and their peoples under the pretext of supporting Palestine. Even the countries that exerted all their political efforts and funds to support the Palestinian cause were not spared from competition and accusations, and at the first real turning point, the surrounding countries and the highly skilled opposing countries in competition turned against them.
Damascus is in a solid strategic position; Lebanon, which was a soft flank that the previous regime always feared, no longer exists as a threatening state, and the Palestinian forces that participated in killing Syrians during the revolution are the ones that undermined the cause with the momentum of October 7. Perhaps everyone remembers that the Palestinians were the second to sign with Israel in the Oslo Accords, and some Arab countries followed suit in their relationship with the Israelis; thus, Damascus sees itself as not an exception to the path of peace that began in 1978 and from which no one who has taken it has deviated until now.


