The Ba'ath Party isn't fascist -- it was founded on social-democracy / 'socialist' principles:
It's a mixture of Arab nationalism and socialism, and they call themselves socialist nationalists.
"Unity, freedom, and socialism."
All the minorities that suffered ethnic cleansing by the Baath party in Syria and Iraq want a word.
The 10s of thousands of political prisons in Sednaya and Tadmor prisons, as well as the 100s of thousands persecuted and killed in Iraq by the Baath regime want a word.
House Makhlouf, House Assad, and their relatives, sitting on their billions of dollars of corruption money, approve of this propaganda message.
Regarding the presence of the left streak in the Baath party, all of them were purged out during the internal conflicts of the 60s as the right wing military leaders took power of the party.
You're sounding distinctly Zionist / pro-Israel, since you're effectively calling for divide-and-conquer of the Arab populations in the region, to the benefit of Israeli consolidation.
Read up on the history of the middle east.
It was never united for it to be divided and conquered. Unions were forced on it by colonial powers and maintained by Arab nationalists and Supremacists.
Also, that's not what zionism is.
Pan-Arabism is *not* comparable to white supremacy (or Hindu supremacism, for that matter) because you've already acknowledged that Arab countries like Syria and Lebanon were former *colonies* of the West:
Pan arabism has sought to ethnic cleanse non-Arab minorities from the region, and has succeeded in most places.
Also, being former colonies is irrelevant to some being Arab supremacists.
But, more to the point, there's no *ideology* of supremacism as there is with Zionism, white supremacy, or Hindu supremacism.
Clearly then you haven't heard of the genocides committed in the middle east in the name of Arab Supremacy and an Arab ethnostate.
By implication you're saying that you're with *Iran*, which I seriously *doubt*:
The capital of Hezbollah was in Baalbek before the Doha agreement.
The foundation of Hezbollah started in Baalbek.
Baalbek tribes have been close allies to Iran for decades through the Iranian tribes as we share common blood (My family, for example, are duel citizens of Lebanon and Iran and much of my family used to live in Iran until very recently)
The first cracks started when Nasrallah decided to ally with the Syrian regime, and the full break up began with the Syrian war as the tribes sided with the rebels while Nasrallah and the clerics sided with the regime.
Also, we financed most of the institutions, not Iran, which is why it almost entirely went bankrupt and started cutting down activity and shutting down once we left.
It wasn't NATO -- it was Obama:
It was neither, the conflict started around the beginning of the cold war, with some conflicts going back to the mid 19th century (1800s)
You're vaguely pointing to some factionalism in Syria's past, but you're not making any point of your own.
Read my posts to @annatar1914 . I made the point.
The point I meant to make with that excerpt is that the protests are, and have been, *cross-class*, in nature -- some protestors want a "technocracy", while others are pro-Hezbollah. I can't discern what the *proportions* are, but it's definitely cross-class and heterogeneous.
Pro-Hezbollah protests are barely noticeable. The protestors were shouting Hezbollah is a terrorist and called for all the ruling class to be hanged including Nasrallah.
Tribes are based on heredity, while nations are based on bureaucracy.
Nope. Tribes in the region vary widely in governing systems, and not all are based on heredity.
Even blood connection is not that common within tribes since most of them are the result of 100s and 1000s of years of constant merging between smaller tribes and clans to make up bigger and bigger ones.