Hazem al-Amin

The number of Syrian nationals who were killed as announced by the revolution coordination committees and broadcast by satellite TV channels follows an incremental sports reasoning. The number starts to become clear at 8 p.m.—or so we think—following a minimum number discussed in the early hours of the evening. Yet the 9 p.m. news bulletin often brings about a dramatic change in this number. The red section on the lower half of the screen conveys this expression: The Syrian revolution coordination committees say that today’s toll amounts to 30 martyrs.
We often go to sleep with 30 people killed in mind. This was the case over the past few weeks, the weeks of Arab deadlines during which every additional day granted to the regime has acquired an ethical value, as it is now equivalent to 30 people killed.

Furthermore, Syrian numbers are stronger than the genuine strength of abstract numbers. No sooner is it revealed by coordination committees than it becomes an undeniable truth. Thirty people killed means 30 people killed, and no one can deny that. The regime never attempted to deny the number. It is denying the phenomenon, saying that it is exaggerated or that people were not killed by its troops’ bullets. However, it seems incapable of denying any specific number.

Undocumented numbers are stronger than the bullets fired by soldiers. We all believe them and we go to sleep knowing that they are the unadorned truth. The regime itself believes them, and when its representatives go on TV, they do not dare to discuss them. How can they discuss a number? Is there anything stronger and clearer than that? A number is what it is, and that’s that. It is irrefutable once it is broadcast by the media, brandished by protesters on signs, mentioned in the statements made by representatives of international organizations and used as a basis for positions and trends. Let us suppose, for instance, that coordination committees were guilty of exaggeration by saying that the number of those killed is 40 whereas the real number is 20. Let us suppose that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, upon hearing this exaggerated number, accused the Syrian regime of being a criminal regime. Would rectifying the number cause the Turkish foreign minister to relinquish his stance? Whoever killed 20 people can just as easily kill 40 people. The exaggeration of the number sped up Davutoglu’s position, but it did not cause it.

Numbers are most probably one of the stalemates of the regime when dealing with the protesters. The regime thought that it could use parallel numbers of victims among military and security personnel, but it soon realized that its number backfired. Indeed, saying that hundreds of troops were killed in the clashes means that it is unable to hold its ground in the confrontations. This might be interpreted by saying that major divisions have started to riddle the army. Accordingly, the regime’s logic in revealing the number of military victims seems disproportionate and unharmonious. Many soldiers were killed in Jisr al-Shoghour. While the regime said that it had the situation under control and managed to eliminate “the terrorists,” Turkey reported that more than 250 Syrian troops were killed. This number was supposed to become a weapon to be exploited by the regime, but the latter was confused and thought twice about going public with it. At the same time, it spoke of mass graves in Jisr al-Shoghour, graves in which were buried those regarding whom the regime kept silent.

The opposition is stronger than the regime when it comes to numbers, whereas the latter is stronger in terms of bullets. A clear showdown is pitting numbers against bullets in Syria. We, in turn, have no inclination to compare the opposition’s numbers or check their conformity. While this might be held against us as a bias in the protesters’ favor, it is also a manifestation of the victory of numbers over bullets.

This article is a translation of the original, which was posted on the NOW Arabic site on Friday, November 18, 2011