Illiberal Tendencies in the Liberal Faction of the Syrian opposition: the Syrian version of March 14

This has to be said now: there are scary intolerant tendencies in the liberal faction of the Syrian opposition.  This faction refers to those who are aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, and who--to protect the Brotherhood--agrees to appear as the "acceptable face" of the Ikhwan opposition in talking to the West.  In fact, a few weeks ago, Yasin Hajj Saleh (the doyen of the liberal faction), wrote in Al-Hayat about a "civil" alliance between a secular and an Islamist trend.  But I have increasingly become alarmed at the Ba`thist-like rhetoric of this "liberal" trend.  They emulate totally the tactics and language of the Ba`th: whoever is not with them, is an an agent, a traitor, a servant of the Syrian regime, a mercenary, and even a Zionist.  A few weeks ago, I criticized (rather mildly for me) an article in the New York Times by Muhammad `Ali Atasi.  I took issue with his attempt to portray his father (a key leader in the Salaj Jadid faction of the Ba`th) as a democrat. I pointed out that he was a Minister of Interior and justified shooting at student demonstrator.   I don't hold people responsible for what positions that they parents had taken: it is only a fair game if children defend their parents' stances.  That is what Atasi did.  He even justified that (from what someone sent me from his FB) by saying that it was the language of the time.  No, not everyone in Syria in the 1960s used the language of the Minister of Interior of Syria in 1964.  Atasi, resorting to a typical Ba`thist tactic, responded to my criticism by saying that his article in NYT resulted in a response from an Israeli diplomat, and that I criticized him on my blog, and he thus concluded that I then can be linked to Zionism.  How Ba`thist of Atasi.  I criticized Hajj Saleh for his attempt to make his communist past as a "struggle for democracy" and he responded (from what someone sent me from his FB page) by hurling sophomoric insults at me.  But I did not respond: I never do when people resorts to insults.  I simply walk away, as I did with this propagandist of the Ba`this regime who I went to school with.   Saleh attacked Adonis (and people know I never defended Adonis) for his lousy open letter to Bashshar, but he so unfairly accused him of being sectarianly biased to Shi`ites against Sunnis, presumably because he was born to a `Alawite family.   But I am writing all this because I got very angry yesterday because someone sent me what Yasin Hajj Saleh wrote against Ghadi Francis, who has gone to Syria on her own to cover the Syrian uprising.  One does not have to agree with Ghadi's article: there is so much not to like about the coverage on Syria: in the Arab (Saudi, Qatari, Hariri and also in Syrian and Hizbullah media) or Western media.  Some did not like that Ghadi talked about things in Hama reminding her of Qandahar (but as one comrade, Joe, wrote on FB, it is insensitive toward the people of Qandahar for Syrian "liberals" to be offended about a comparison to Qandahar--no matter whether the analogy is apt or not.  As comrade Amer said on FB: people are arguing over that one word, and ignoring the rest of the article.  I was offended because Saleh tossed crude, vulgar, and blatantly sexist insults against Ghadi (and even slandered her as a woman) simply because he did not like what she wrote.  I am not arguing over the merits or shortcomings of Ghadi's article on Hama: I am arguing about this fascistic methods of this liberal faction.  They are like classical conservative anti-communist: whoever disagrees with them, and whoever calls for social justice in the US, is branded as a Stalinist Albanian-style communist.  That is the method of Syrian liberal movement.  They are so intolerant of any kind of dissent.  Saleh even called Ghadi a "mercenary".   He refers to her as an SSNP member, although Ghadi was expelled from the SSNP because they did not like what she has been writing about Syria.  Saleh and the other liberals just conveniently left out that Ghadi was arrested by the lousy Syrian regime because she was moving freely without escort in Syria.  They have even threatened her safety by their unfair, unsubstantiated accusations.  But the inconsistently of this liberal faction is now legend:  they call for democracy in Syria...in the mouthpieces of Saudi princes; they call for freedom for Syria...in publications that have excelled in racism against the Syrian people (An-Nahar and Al-Mustaqbal); they call for the safety of the Syrian people...in publications that have been responsible for creating the climate that led to the murder and abuse of Syrian workers in Lebanon;  they call for secularism while aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood; they talk about gender equality, and yet a woman who writes what they don't like is attacked in the vulgar manner of Saudi preachers, etc.  This is not about Ghadi's article: I understand that many did not like her tone and and her language.  Several Syrians have written to me and I invite them (and invite others) to write a response to Ghadi and I shall post in full.  We all want to understand what is happening in Syria, especially that the Syrian regime media are as bad as the Saudi and Qatari media.  While the Western media are busy quoting this guy, whose oratorical skills have put MLK's skills to shame.

PS For those Syrians who asked how Ghadi Francis was able to sneak into Hama (implying a measure of cooperation with the regime), she explains on my Facebook wall that she indeed snuck in on her own through Silmiyyah and that the Ministry of Information asked her to leave and she refused.  She explains that As-Safir has been banned from Syria because of her articles which displeased the regime.  She talks about being bullied by the Syrian regime.