Why are Syrian Christians being targeted by Islamist rebels? The Western press cannot agree on a reason, a review of recent reports from Syria reveals.
Can we credit the explanation given by the Wall Street Journal -- that the rebels do not trust Christians -- as a sufficient explanation? And if so, what does that mean? Are the reports of murders, kidnappings, rapes and overt persecution of Christians in Syria by Islamist rebels motivated by religion, politics, ethnicity, nationalism or is it a lack of trust?
Is the narrative put forward by ITAR-TASS, the Russian wire service and successor to the Soviet TASS News Agency -- that the rebels are fanatics bent on turning Syria into a Sunni Muslim state governed by Sharia law -- the truth?
On this past Monday, The Wall Street Journal ran a story on its front page under this headline:
Christians of Homs Grieve as Battle for City Intensifies
That story examined the plight of Syria's Christians. The Journal entered into the report by looking at the death of Dutch Jesuit Father Frans van der Lugt, who had been murdered by members of an Islamist militia in the town of Homs.
The well-written article offers extensive quotes from a second Syrian Roman Catholic priest on this tragedy and notes the late priest's attempt to bridge the divide between Christians and Muslims. In the 10th paragraph, the story opens up into a wider discussion of the plight of Syria's Christians and recounts Assad's Easter visit to a monastery -- whether Catholic or some variety of Orthodox, that detail is left out.
While the fighting raged in Homs, President Bashar al-Assad showed up unexpectedly on Sunday in the ancient Christian town of Maaloula, about 30 miles northeast of the capital Damascus. The town was overrun by Islamist rebels in September and reclaimed by the Syrian army a week ago.
State media released video footage of Mr. Assad surveying smashed icons at the town's damaged monasteries and quoted him as saying that "no amount of terror can ever erase our history and civilization."
The fight over Maaloula, like the killing of Father Frans, both reflect the quandary of Syria's Christians. Many feel an affinity for Mr. Assad. His Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, dominates the regime while the majority of Syrians—and opposition supporters—are Sunni Muslims.
Most Christians have become all the more convinced that only the regime can protect them after some rebels came under the sway of Islamic extremists who have attacked and pillaged their communities and churches and targeted priests and nuns.
Some Christians still seek to build bridges with both sides of the civil war, as Father Frans did. But in a landscape where religious and sectarian affiliations often define and shape the struggle, they find themselves under fire from both sides.
Many rebels say they don't fully trust Christians, while regime supporters see those who reach out to the opposition as naive or traitors. Father Frans found himself in that position, say some close to him
What are we to make of these assertions -- "some rebels" are Islamists, or that "many rebels say they don't fully trust Christians?" Is that a fair, suffient or accurate statement of affairs?
A look at the Financial Times report on President al-Assad's visit to Maaloula on Easter Sunday makes the argument that the Assad regime is playing up the Islamist angle for his political benefit. But it assumes the persecution is real.
President Bashar al-Assad made an Easter visit on Sunday to a historic Christian town recaptured by the army, in a rare appearance outside the capital that shows his growing confidence in state control around Damascus.
The visit also aims to portray him as the protector of Syrian minorities against a rebel movement led by Islamist forces.
The wire service stories also connect Christian fear of the rebels with support for Assad. AFP's account closes with the explanation:
Syria’s large Christian minority has sought neutrality throughout the three-year war, and has viewed the Sunni-led rebels with growing concern as jihadists have flocked to their ranks.
The Los Angeles Times opens its story on the Maaloula visit noting that both Assad and the rebel leadership are courting Syria's Christians.
But Assad appears to be winning.
DAMASCUS, Syria -- President Bashar Assad made a symbolic Easter visit Sunday to the heavily damaged town of Maaloula, a Christian landmark enclave recaptured from Islamist rebels last week by government forces. The president’s visit, broadcast on state television, underscored his efforts to portray himself as a defender of Christians and other minorities as he prepares for an expected reelection bid in the midst of a devastating war now in its fourth year.
Maaloula and several of its historic churches sustained significant damage during heavy fighting and bombardment. Church leaders say priceless icons were looted or destroyed during the rebel occupation of Maaloula, famous for its preservation of Aramaic, a version of the language spoken by Jesus Christ.
“No one, no matter the extent of their terrorism, is able to erase our human and cultural history,” Assad declared in Maaloula while in the company of senior Christian clerics. “Maaloula will remain steadfast ... in the face of the barbarity and darkness of all who target the homeland.”
Opposition groups seeking Assad’s ouster generally dismissed the trip as a stunt or faked. The exile-based Syrian National Coalition sent Easter greetings to Syria’s Christians “at a time when Assad destroyed the country because of a people who are demanding freedom.”
Comparing the reporting by Peter Oborne of the Daily Telegraph on the plight of Syria's Christians to the the Wall Street Journal reveals the shallowness of the WSJ's piece. Reporting on his visit to Maaloula shortly after it was recapture by government forces, Oborne writes:
Below, the village itself appeared practically deserted; most of its 5,000-strong, mainly Christian, population have fled since it first came under rebel attack, on Sept 4 last year.
According to Samir, a soldier who said he had been born in Maaloula, and joined up to defend his village, the ancient religious centre "will not change hands again because most of the young men in the village have joined the military".
His friend, Imad, said there had been 32 churches in Maaloula and claimed that "all of them have been destroyed" - although it was clear from the vantage point near the monastery that in fact churches were still standing, albeit with signs of damage and some burning.
Anger among regime supporters at what they claim are the excesses of the rebels - who include radical Islamist insurgent groups - was palpable. "I can't describe my feelings because the terrorists are destroying the Christian religion," said Imad, who said he had been an electrician in Maaloula before he joined the military and the rest of his family moved to Damsacus two years ago. Samir claimed that the rebels had behaved brutally to young men of the town when they first arrived, killing many.
However, there have been no documented massacres of Christian inhabitants under the rebels' rule of Maaloula and a group of nuns who were released last month after being kidnapped by the Islamist group, Jabhat al-Nusra, said they had been treated well.
Oborne's article allows both sides to speak, while offering facts that put the claims in context. The complexity of the war in Syria is better served by the balanced but nuanced approach taken by the Daily Telegraph, I believe, than the shy style adopted by the WSJ. While I have no firsthand knowledge of the events unfolding in Syria, Oborne's story just feels right -- it is a first-class example of the craft of reporting.
Where does the truth lay in all of this? The WSJ piece doesn't feel right to me. I am not saying it is incorrect, but it is incomplete.
As a stand-alone piece on the murder of Father van der Lugt, the WSJ article is great. It seems to get into trouble, however, when it moves into a wider discussion of the causes and political-religious currents of Syria's civil war. Frankly, I am not convinced it is telling the full story. It leaves me wonder why the WSJ is being shy in examining the persecution of Christians by Muslims?