Recent events in Syria mark a significant shift in the country’s geopolitical identity. The arrest of two senior members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) by Syria’s de-facto leaders cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident or a routine security matter. This action coincided with a meeting between Syria’s new ruler, Ahmad al-Sharaa, AKA Abu Mohammad al-Joulani, and US Congressman Cory Mills, during which al-Sharaa reportedly expressed openness to joining the “Abraham Accords”, the US-brokered framework for normalisation with “Israel”, "under the right conditions".

Moreover, leaked information confirms that Damascus has signalled its approval of the majority of eight conditions set forth by the US in exchange for political and economic incentives. According to Reuters, US Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Levant and Syria, Natasha Franceschi, gave the list of eight demands to the new Syrian foreign minister during an in-person meeting on the sidelines of a Syria donor conference in Brussels on March 18, 2025.

These conditions include the complete dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles, a commitment to ending support for what the US classifies as terrorism, cessation of threats toward regional 'neighbours', chiefly “Israel”, curtailment of what the US call Iranian influence, the banning of Palestinian factions’ activities on Syrian soil, primarily Hamas and the PIJ, security cooperation with Washington, and possibly granting the US permission for 'counterterrorism' strikes inside Syria.

In response to the US’s eight conditions, a formal message reportedly sent by the new Syrian government on April 14, 2025, pledged to prevent Syrian territory from being used as a launching ground for threats against any state, including “Israel”. It also announced the formation of a committee to monitor the activity of Palestinian groups within Syria.

These moves underscore a transformation that goes beyond surface-level diplomacy, signalling a strategic reorientation and a potential willingness to normalise relations with “Israel”.

The so-called Syrian revolution, having succeeded in ousting President Bashar al-Assad, is now entering a new phase, one defined by strategic realignment and integration into the so-called "Moderate Arab States," accompanied by political and economic openness to the West.

This pivot implies a readiness to make concessions that would have been unthinkable under the former government, particularly those undermining Syria's former ideological pillars and long-standing role as a bastion of pan-Arab and Islamic resistance against occupation.

This article does not seek to re-litigate the Syrian conflict, a war that has already consumed much energy and is now widely seen as a lost cause for the region's remaining Resistance forces. Instead, it raises a pressing question: Is it accurate, or even justifiable, to continue referring to those who fought to dismantle Syria and Libya as "revolutionaries"?

Related News

The Zionist regime’s impunity has collapsed the post-WWII order

After their agreement with Al-Sharaa, the Kurds are not satisfied with the constitutional declaration

Many of these uprisings were described as noble struggles for freedom and dignity. But if the result of these so-called “pure and patriotic” revolutions is the dismantling of national sovereignty and the empowerment of Western-aligned regimes, should the term “revolution” still be applied?

Typically, four justifications are presented when confronting this contradiction:

1. The revolution lost its way.
2. Those in power today do not represent the revolution.
3. Revolution is a cumulative process: historical examples like the French Revolution are cited.
4. The future will correct the mistakes of the present.

Each of these claims warrants brief examination:

1. The revolution lost its way
   This claim lacks analytical rigour. A popular uprising is either chaotic by nature, or it is a structured movement with clear ideological foundations and defined goals. If it achieved its stated objectives — regime change, in this case — then arguing it “lost its way” is logically inconsistent. One cannot claim both success and deviation simultaneously.
2. Today’s leaders do not represent the revolution
   This is a form of historical revisionism. The individuals currently in power are the very figures who were celebrated in public squares and entrusted by the movement's supporters and their affiliated media. To deny their representative status is to erase the revolution’s actual trajectory and leadership.
3. Revolution is a cumulative process
   While true in principle, this argument is frequently misapplied. Not all revolutions are equal, and context matters. Drawing equivalence between the French Revolution and modern Arab uprisings, for instance, ignores crucial differences in geopolitical circumstances, external interventions, and ideological underpinnings.
4. The future will correct the present
   This line of thinking defers accountability indefinitely, assuming a future revolution will rectify today’s failures, without offering a plan, timeframe, or even a clear understanding of how or why this corrective revolution will succeed. It is often promoted by the same voices that championed the first revolution, despite its evident failures.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Resistance movements are engaged in an existential struggle against a campaign of collective annihilation, orchestrated by a US-Israeli axis intent on cementing regional dominance and dismantling all forms of resistance.

In such a context, referring to those who imprison resistance fighters in “new Syria” as “revolutionaries” is not only misleading but morally and politically indefensible. Such characterisations serve only to blur the line between genuine revolutionary action and acts of sabotage dressed in revolutionary language.

Clinging to a romanticised version of the Syrian and Libyan uprisings, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, amounts to intellectual suicide. It confuses the public, paralyses future movements, and hinders the emergence of authentic revolutionary efforts rooted in critical reflection and historical awareness.

Now more than ever, a rigorous reassessment is needed. Not as an academic exercise, but as a moral and national duty. And this reassessment must take seriously the alternative readings offered by steadfast Resistance movements, from Gaza to southern Lebanon to Yemen, whose leaders remain committed to a vision of liberation that cannot be co-opted or outsourced.

This article is not an ideological attack or a rhetorical spat. It is a call to clarity. A reminder that true revolution is not a slogan but a commitment grounded in vision, sacrifice, and integrity.

Those unwilling to reassess their missteps or acknowledge the consequences of their choices should step aside from public discourse. They should not undermine the concept of revolution by associating it with ventures rooted in destruction, subservience, and betrayal.

When alignments become clear and illusions are shattered, the enduring hope lies in the memory of the people, and in the resilience of those who continue to prove that genuine revolutions are not borrowed or bought. They are born from struggle and clarity alike.