taz.de
Aleppo Falls to Jihadists: Syria Loses Control of Major City
A jihadist offensive led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has resulted in the loss of control over Aleppo, Syria, to the Syrian government, marking the first time since 2012 that the city is not under regime control. At least 277 people have been killed, and the situation is escalating rapidly.
- What is the immediate impact of the jihadist offensive on the Syrian conflict and the civilian population?
- A jihadist offensive in northern Syria has resulted in the loss of Aleppo to the Syrian government, marking the first time since 2012 that the city is not under regime control. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports intense fighting and significant territorial gains by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and allied groups, leading to the displacement of civilians and a humanitarian crisis.
- How did the Syrian government's dependence on Russia and Iran contribute to the success of the rebel offensive?
- The offensive, spearheaded by HTS, highlights the fragility of the Syrian government's hold on power and the limitations of its Russian and Iranian backers. The lack of significant resistance from the Syrian army indicates either a lack of resources or a strategic retreat. This raises concerns about the potential spread of conflict and further instability in the region.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of HTS's territorial gains for the stability of the region and future peace negotiations?
- The rapid advance of HTS underscores the ongoing challenges in Syria, and the limitations of international efforts to resolve the conflict. The failure of political processes and the continued reliance on military intervention create a cycle of violence with severe humanitarian consequences. This situation may prompt further involvement from regional and global powers.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the news tends to emphasize the territorial gains of the rebels and the Syrian government's apparent weakness or lack of resistance. Headlines and introductory paragraphs often highlight the rebel advances, potentially creating an impression of imminent regime collapse. The use of words such as "surprising" and "unexpected" when describing the rebel offensive adds to this framing. While reporting on government actions, the articles focus on military responses, giving less space to political or diplomatic efforts. The tone often focuses on the military aspects and the scale of the rebel advances rather than the potential for diplomatic solutions.
Language Bias
The articles use terms such as "Dschihadisten" (jihadists) and "Rebellen" (rebels) which can be loaded and potentially inflammatory. The consistent description of the rebel advance as an "offensive" might suggest a more aggressive or violent action than other potential descriptors. Neutral alternatives could include terms like "armed groups" or "insurgents" to describe the rebels more objectively, while "militants" might replace "Dschihadisten", depending on context. There's potential for improved objectivity in the wording and selection of terms.
Bias by Omission
The articles predominantly focus on the military actions and territorial gains of the rebels, giving less attention to the perspectives and experiences of civilians caught in the crossfire. The impact of the conflict on the civilian population—including displacement, casualties, and humanitarian needs—is underreported. While some articles mention civilian casualties, a deeper exploration of the humanitarian crisis is lacking. Additionally, the articles do not extensively explore the reasons behind the sudden rebel advance and the Syrian government's apparent inability to resist.
False Dichotomy
The articles sometimes present a simplified narrative of rebels versus the Syrian government, overlooking the complexities of the conflict and the involvement of external actors like Russia and Iran, as well as the internal factions within the rebel groups. The portrayal of HTS (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) as solely responsible for the offensive, while mentioning other rebel groups, may oversimplify the situation and fail to fully account for the alliances and dynamics at play. The articles also focus heavily on the military aspect of the conflict, often neglecting the political and diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis.
Gender Bias
The articles primarily focus on statements from male political and military figures and lack detailed reporting of women's experiences or perspectives during the conflict. The reporting doesn't explicitly showcase gender bias but the lack of information about women's experiences within this conflict represents a significant gap in the reporting.