The Syrian regime and its approach to dealing with its opponents

After an internal struggle within the military committee between Salah Jadid and Hafez al-Assad on one side, and Salim Hatum on the other, which led to Salah Jadid’s visit to the city of Sweida after the Druze bloc felt betrayed by the dominance of the Alawite bloc, Salih Jadid and the accompanying officers were arrested by Hatum. Hafez al-Assad then intervened, sending aircraft to Sweida, which made Hatum feel his movement had failed, prompting him to flee south towards Jordan, where King Hussein granted him political asylum along with his companions.

In March 1967, Salim Hatum was tried in absentia and sentenced to death on charges of espionage for Israel, in a policy that would later become a hallmark of the Syrian mentality, accusing and eliminating any opponent of the regime. Ironically, just two months later, Syria was engaged in war against Israel, and on the sixth day of the war, Salim Hatum announced his return to Syria to fight alongside the “brotherly enemies” against the external enemy, seemingly believing that the war had erased the page of past conflicts. However, as soon as he entered Syria, security officers led him to the basements of Damascus intelligence, where he was brought before a military court that upheld the death sentence against him and his companion, Badr Jumaa. He was tortured, his ribs were broken, and before being left to die, he was shot while half-alive, at five in the morning on June 26, 1967.

The assassination of military leader Salim Hatum is a stark example of the mentality that has governed the Syrian regime for decades and still does! A mentality based on tyranny and the absolute rejection of any opposing voice, even in times of crises and external threats.

The most prominent features of this mentality include:

1. Intolerance for dissent: Since its establishment, the Syrian regime has not tolerated any opinion opposing its own, even if that opinion comes from within the ruling party itself!
2. Iron-fisted control: The Syrian regime believes that maintaining power requires an iron grip on all aspects of public and private life, and any deviation from the official line is seen as a direct threat to the regime.
3. Exaggeration of any opposing movement: Even small dissent is portrayed as an existential threat to the regime.
4. Physical elimination of opponents: The Syrian regime does not hesitate to use excessive force, even killing, to rid itself of its opponents.

The assassination of Hatum solidified Hafez al-Assad’s control over power later on, but in the long term, it contributed to increased tension and instability in the country. It also revealed to the world the true nature of the Syrian regime, which has burned the Syrian people since 2011.

The mentality that led to the assassination of Salim Hatum is the same one that has resulted in the current ramifications of the Syrian crisis as a whole. Through this historical narrative, one can understand the Assad regime’s rejection of any positive stance that has emerged from opponents during Bashar al-Assad’s time, regardless of the time, place, individuals, and surrounding circumstances.

The core issue lies in the political mentality of the Syrian regime, which in addition to what has been mentioned earlier, includes:

1. Intolerance for opposition: Whether the opponent is an influential military figure like Salim Hatum or a political activist in our current era, the Syrian regime considers any opposing voice a direct threat to its authority.
2. Use of force as a means of suppressing dissent: Whether through direct executions, as happened with Hatum, or through arrest and torture, as is currently happening with opponents, the Syrian regime does not hesitate to use overwhelming force to eliminate any threat.
3. Exaggeration of danger: Whether the threat is real or imagined, the Syrian regime tends to amplify any threat, whether it is internal from the opposition or external from Israel.

However, there are differences between the two situations rooted in international and regional circumstances, as the international and regional conditions during Hafez al-Assad’s era differ from the current conditions under the son’s regime. At that time, Arab-Israeli conflicts were the primary concern, while now there are more complex regional conflicts, in addition to the nature of the Syrian opposition. Salim Hatum’s opposition was internal to the regime itself, whereas the current opposition is a widespread popular uprising, not to mention the evolution of the repressive means used by the Syrian regime over time, which have become more lethal and brutal.

The two situations can be linked by confirming that the political mentality of the Syrian regime has not changed fundamentally, and Bashar al-Assad still relies on force and repression to maintain his authority. The two situations can also be connected by affirming that the Syrian regime exploits any circumstance, whether internal or external, to suppress dissent and settle political scores.

Comparing Salim Hatum’s case with the current opponents of Bashar al-Assad helps us understand the nature of the Syrian regime and the reasons behind the continued Syrian crisis, as it reveals the regime’s ongoing use of the same repressive methods, regardless of the changes that have occurred in the surrounding circumstances.