BEIRUT — A significant and tragic chapter in the modern history of the Arab world unfolded more than forty years ago during the Hama Massacre, which was ordered by then-Syrian President Hafez Assad.
From February 2, 1982, the government launched a relentless attack on Hama, resulting in the deaths or disappearances of an estimated 10,000 to 40,000 individuals over nearly a month, laying waste to the city.
The atrocities committed during this assault continue to haunt the memories of both Syrians and Arabs, marking the event as a pivotal moment in the region’s history.
Recently, Islamist militants have taken control of Hama, an act that many Syrians have anticipated for over four decades.
This act is laden with symbolism in the ongoing conflict in Syria, a war that began thirteen years ago, which many believe has its roots in the suffering of Hama.
Hama is recognized as Syria’s fourth-largest city, famous for its picturesque waterwheels that dot the banks of the Orontes River.
However, its identity transformed dramatically in the early 1980s, becoming synonymous with brutality.
The city was the scene of persistent anti-government violence led by the Muslim Brotherhood, targeting military officials and state institutions.
The government’s offensive in February 1982 commenced with heavy bombardment from warplanes, which paved the way for ground troops to invade, aiming to erase the insurgency.
Hafez Assad’s brother, Rifaat, commanded the shelling, earning him the notorious title “Butcher of Hama.”
Recently, Rifaat Assad was charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with the Hama events, with an international arrest warrant issued three years prior to his indictment.
The Hama massacre sowed deep-seated resentment, leading to uprisings against Hafez Assad’s son, Bashar, in subsequent years.
In 2011, Hama, along with its surrounding areas, became a focal point for large-scale protests against the current regime as the Arab Spring swept across the region.
The residents’ unrest culminated in government forces temporarily withdrawing from Hama in June 2012.
During this time, the opposition gained control, and a feeling of liberation permeated the city, once again vibrant with life from its 800,000 residents.
Local activists marked the city with red paint—a tribute to the victims of the 1982 massacre—while chanting “Erhal ya Bashar,” urging the president to step down.
However, the government retaliated aggressively in August 2012, leading to devastating casualties as it reclaimed the city, where the voices of dissent were ruthlessly silenced.
Aron Lund, an expert on Syria, noted the significant symbolism associated with Hama, highlighting its historical impact on both the opposition and the regime.
The legacy of the Hama massacre remains formative, particularly as many current military leaders were young at that time, creating a lasting phobia towards any compromise during protests in 2011.
Recently, Abu Mohammed al-Golani, the leader of the insurgency, declared that fighters had entered Hama “to heal the wound that has bled for 40 years,” taking steps to release prisoners from the central jail upon their arrival.
Strategically, Hama serves as a vital junction that connects different regions of Syria, located approximately 200 kilometers (125 miles) north of Damascus, the capital.
This province also borders Latakia, a coastal area that is a stronghold for Assad supporters.
While Hama’s population is predominantly Sunni Muslim, it includes a minority of Alawites, the sect to which the Assad family belongs.
The loss of Hama would notably shift the balance of power, as noted by Lund, especially following the fall of Aleppo and with government forces previously prepared for resistance.
This event could embolden the opposition while demoralizing Assad’s supporters.
If the insurgents continue their momentum towards Homs, the implications could be massive; Homs is crucial as it relates to Damascus and its coastal support base, encompassing a Russian naval base.
The potential capture of Homs would allow rebels to disrupt the links between the capital and critical regions, creating a significant strategic advantage.
