Reports | 11 09 2026
dalia mohammed
Physician and political activist Fidaa al-Hourani signed a statement criticizing the substance of politician Roula al-Rakbi’s remarks before the UN Security Council, about a week after al-Hourani herself was targeted by a social media campaign linking her political position to her father’s legacy.
In the statement issued by civil and community figures in Hama, which al-Hourani was among those who signed, the criticism focused on the substance of al-Rakbi’s remarks and her assessment of the transitional period. It made no reference to her personal life or family.
Other responses to al-Rakbi’s remarks, however, went beyond criticizing the substance of her intervention, invoking her father and his political history, while also discussing her work and presumed motives.
This raises a question worth examining: How can women who have themselves been subjected to rhetoric that invokes family or personal life in political debate disagree with other women without reproducing some of that same rhetoric?
The report does not seek to determine which of the two political positions is more valid, nor does it suggest that being subjected to defamation obliges a woman to adopt a particular political stance. Rather, it seeks to distinguish between legitimate political disagreement and turning a woman herself into the target of attacks because of her family or private life.
Objections to Roula’s Remarks
On Aug. 27, Roula al-Rakbi, who appeared before the Security Council in her capacity as country director of Women Now for Development, spoke of concerns over excessive centralization of power, the lack of an effective separation of powers, and a lack of clarity in governance, transparency and accountability.
She addressed women’s participation in decision-making, women’s rights and personal and civil freedoms, and justice for victims of violations, including those that occurred after December 2024. She also spoke about the phenomenon of “abductions” and its female victims.
In her remarks, she said the danger during the transitional period was “changing the people who hold power without changing the way power is exercised.”
On Aug. 31, a statement issued by “civil and community figures in the city of Hama” criticized al-Rakbi’s intervention.
The statement said that calls for the rule of law, respect for human rights and Syrians’ participation in building their country’s future were beyond dispute. But it argued that al-Rakbi had presented, in its words, a “selective and reductive” picture of the Syrian reality.
The signatories said any assessment of the political transition should take into account the legacy of authoritarian rule, war and destruction, as well as the security, economic and humanitarian challenges facing the state.
The statement also said her remarks did not sufficiently address, in the signatories’ view, Syria’s unity and sovereignty, foreign military interventions, and the existence of areas outside state control.
Fidaa al-Hourani was among those who signed the statement.
The published text criticizes the substance of al-Rakbi’s remarks and her assessment of the transitional period. It does not mention her father or address her private life or reputation.
When Her Father Became Part of the Response
Days before signing the statement, Fidaa al-Hourani herself had faced a social media campaign linking her political position to the legacy of her father, Akram al-Hourani.
The campaign followed her participation in a discussion session in the city of Salamiya, where she called for listening to citizens, greater clarity in the management of public affairs, and a state based on citizenship, the rule of law, and equality in rights and responsibilities.
Later, posts accused her of seeking to “recycle the Baath,” linking her participation to the political legacy of her father, Akram al-Hourani.
In al-Rakbi’s case, posts discussing her remarks before the Security Council invoked the name of her father, Faisal al-Rakbi, and his political history. Earlier posts, meanwhile, had linked Fidaa’s political position to her father’s legacy.
This does not mean the two campaigns were identical in the substance of their rhetoric or the scale of the targeting. Nor does al-Hourani’s earlier experience of such a campaign, in itself, make her decision to sign a statement criticizing al-Rakbi contradictory. Political disagreement does not require people to share the same positions or experiences.
But the timing of the two cases raises a different question: What happens when the debate moves from a woman’s position to her family and personal connections?
Invoking women’s ties to men is not new in Syrian political discourse. An investigation by the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression reported that Susan Zakzouk and her colleagues on the Women’s Advisory Board were referred to in 2016 first as “de Mistura’s women” and later as “de Mistura’s widows,” in what the investigation described as an attempt to diminish the value of their independent feminist work.
Are Women Reproducing the Same Rhetoric?
Feminist activist Nora Salem told Rozana that invoking a woman’s father or husband in defamation campaigns is rooted in patriarchy because it links a woman’s opinion to a man in her family and, in her view, strips her of her independence and her right to express her own views.
According to Salem, this approach does not target the activist alone. It can also affect her family, creating pressure on her to retract her statements under the pretext of protecting her family or avoiding the public targeting of male members of the family through her.
She argues that women are portrayed in such campaigns as lacking independent opinions, as though they speak because of their families, their histories or the organizations they work with.
She added that the political threat facing civil society and feminist activism in Syria has not disappeared, but has acquired additional layers when the speaker is a woman.
In her view, when a dissenting opinion comes from a man, it is often debated on its merits. When it comes from a woman, her personal life, family, source of funding and work are brought into the discussion to explain what she is saying.
She said the impact can be seen in women’s reluctance to participate in public or political debate, or in their choice of words that are less likely to expose them to a defamation campaign.
She also noted that women activists from minority communities may face attempts to link their positions to their sectarian or religious identities rather than to the analysis or opinions they put forward.
But another question remains: Can women themselves, in certain contexts, reproduce the rhetoric used to target other women?
Participating in political criticism or signing a critical statement does not, in itself, constitute gender-based violence. But the question becomes more complicated when criticism moves beyond the substance of a position and begins to use the same tools that can undermine a woman’s autonomy — whether through her family, private life or presumed motives.
When Disagreement Becomes a Test of Solidarity
On Sept. 4, the Syrian Feminist Political Movement issued a statement expressing solidarity with its founding member, Roula al-Rakbi.
The movement said al-Rakbi had faced, according to the statement, a campaign of defamation and incitement following her participation in a Security Council session and her delivery of remarks on behalf of Syrian civil society.
It added that al-Rakbi had conveyed facts, concerns and perspectives to policymakers and raised questions about the political transition, the rule of law, public freedoms, women’s participation, justice and accountability.
The statement does not discuss Fidaa al-Hourani’s position or the statement she signed. Instead, it defends al-Rakbi’s right to speak without being accused of disloyalty, defamed or silenced, according to its text.
Feminist activist Nora Salem told Rozana that feminist solidarity “does not necessarily mean political agreement,” and that political disagreement is healthy in functioning societies.
She added that solidarity is demonstrated by the ability of a feminist support network to stand together in the face of campaigns targeting a feminist or woman activist, and to work to prevent such campaigns from being repeated.
That does not mean, according to this view, that women should stop criticizing one another. Political criticism can address women’s positions, rhetoric and public roles just as it can those of men.
The question, however, is where the limits of that criticism lie — and whether it remains focused on what a woman says and does, or shifts to her private life, family and personal connections.
Digital Violence and the Targeting of Women in Public Life
A study by the Deutsche Welle Akademie describes online gender-based violence in Syria as a systematic practice rather than a series of isolated incidents.
The study says defamation, harassment, blackmail, the exposure of personal information and psychological intimidation are among the forms such violence can take.
According to the study, female journalists, activists and civil society figures are particularly vulnerable to targeting because of their presence in public life.
The study does not attribute either the campaign against al-Rakbi or the earlier campaign against al-Hourani to any specific actor. It does, however, provide a broader context for understanding the forms of targeting that women activists, journalists and others working in public life may face.
In both cases, the debate began with the political positions of two women, and some responses then invoked their fathers’ histories alongside discussions of those positions. By contrast, the statement signed by al-Hourani remained focused on political criticism of al-Rakbi’s intervention.
Feminist solidarity does not necessarily mean agreement on political positions, nor does being targeted by a defamation campaign place a woman beyond criticism. But the cases examined in this report raise a question about the limits of disagreement: Can women disagree over what other women say and do without turning the debate into one about the men to whom they are related?