The message that the US and Israel keep sending to the Arab people is that they must accept the tyrants they decide for them or they will turn their life into hell, as they did to the Syrians, argued the Syrian writer Faisal Al Qassem in yesterday’s edition of the pan-Arab newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi.

The powers who call the shots in the region were caught off guard by the Arab Spring; even US intelligence failed to foresee the Arab uprisings against the US-backed tyrannies, the writer said.

However, the tyrants whose constituencies did not let the revolutions take their course and attain their goals, he contended.

Some said the failure of the Syrian revolution to achieve its goals was down to the strength of the regime and the support of its allies in Iran, Lebanon, Iraq and Russia.

Some put the blame on Islamists for hijacking the revolutions and others blame the divided opposition that has failed to bring all Syrians under one umbrella.

Most of these people, however, are oblivious to a more serious fact: Syria is Israel’s neighbour.

Tel Aviv will never accept that the people of countries bordering Israel can take matters into their won hands.

If that should happen, it will be an existential threat to Israel, according to the writer.

Tel Aviv would rather deal with dictatorships that trample on the people and do whatever they like at home as long as they protect Israel’s security. Since the signing of the 1974 Israeli-Syrian disengagement agreement, the Israeli borders, and the Golan Heights in particular, have been the quietest tourist resort in Israel.

There has always been an open attempt at ensuring Israel remains without any economic, democratic or military competitor in the entire the Middle East region.

Yet the Arab Spring came with a prospect of swiftly turning Arab countries into democracies so that Israel will be no longer the only democracy in the region, the writer said.

But alas for those who were too optimistic and dreamy, the Arab uprisings have been under attack from all directions at home and abroad.

Now plotting against the Syrian revolution not only aims at aborting it, but to make the Syrians regret the moment they rose against the regime that had maintained Israel’s security for decades.

As it stands, the Syrians’ dream at this point is to merely cover their basic needs, rather than building a democracy capable of competing with that of Israel.

“We have said time and again that Israel will not allow real democracies to emerge near its borders,” he suggested.

Israel would prefer to have cruel dictatorships in neighbouring countries, especially since its quietest years have been when the Arab region was ruled by tyrants.

Lebanon’s word war can turn into civil war

A fierce war of words is taking place in Lebanon between Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Saad Hariri, the leader of the Future Movement, noted Abdel Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of the news website Rai Al Youm.

The war of words is being fanned by different sections of the Lebanese media, which runs the risk of turning the polarisation into a destructive civil war, the writer cautioned.

Mr Hariri who spends most of the time travelling between Riyadh and Paris to avoid the fate of his father, who was assassinated in 2005, has made strong-worded statements defending Saudi Arabia and holding Mr Nasrallah liable for the car bomb attacks that recently hit the country, saying it was because of Hizbollah’s backing of the Syrian regime.

Mr Hariri’s backlash against Mr Nasrallah is not new. Nor is his support of his Saudi allies. The novelty, however, came in the statement made on his behalf by Nouhad El Machnouk, an MP in Mr Hariri’s Future Movement, during a ceremony held to honour Lebanese members of the media for their “resistance to Iranian occupation of the Lebanese decision making”, a clear reference to the Hizbollah bloc, he said.

Mr El Machnouk said: “As we have kicked Syria’s guardianship out of Lebanon, we will kick out Iran’s occupation.” This means waging an open war on Hizbollah that could lead to a Syrian-style scenario.

Arabic language is still marginalised at home

“Being passionate about the Arabic language, I have frequently asked myself: what are the factors that have caused the youth to turn away from learning their mother tongue?” Wrote Zainab Hifni in the UAE-based Al Ittihad.

Is it because linguists have failed to improve and simplify Arabic to keep up with the times? Is it the fact that we are an intellectually and socially backward nation that has caused Arabic to lag behind? Or is it because we cling to the trivia of the language, failing to strike a balance between dialects and classical Arabic?

Arab nations marked “World Arabic Language Day” on Wednesday, December 18. On the same day in 1973, Arabic became the sixth official language of the United Nations; conferences have centred on the role of the media in empowering or weakening Arabic.

The Arab media outlets are partly to blame for undermining Arabic through their use of dialects. Many Arab media people have failed to use a simplified, standard Arabic in their programmes, she remarked.

Academies of the Arab language have not done enough to bridge the gap between the standard Arabic and dialects, so that Arabs could meet in the middle.

Luckily, the internet has provided an opportunity for Arabic to restore its status, she said.

* Digest compiled by Abdelhafid Ezzouitni

AEzzouitni@thenational.ae