It has been one month since a video was first posted on social media — filmed live on Facebook — showing a member of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) shooting his sister dead over honour. At the time the rebel group said that the actions of Bashar Bseis did not reflect its revolutionary values as it continues to fight to bring down the Assad regime. The FSA, which also runs its own military courts, confirmed that it was investigating the matter; having put out an arrest warrant for him. Yet justice has yet to be served. In all man-made wars, civil or international, women find themselves unwittingly on the frontlines. The aftermath of the US-UK-led Iraq war of aggression gave rise to ISIS. There has been much documented evidence of the terror group’s employment of systematic sexual violence against women; particularly those belonging to the minority Yazidi community. The Libyan conflict saw Col Gaddafi’s troops use rape as an instrument of war. In Afghanistan, women accuse ISIS as well as the Taliban of rape. And when it comes to Syria, pro-regime forces as well as ISIS are guilty of using rape as a means of punishing entire communities. This is not to suggest that that only those battlefields which have been internationalised are exclusive hotbeds of sexual violence; as the suffering of the Rohingya women at the hands of the Myanmar military underscores. Or, indeed, Boko Haram’s reign of brutality against Nigerian women. Yet in most cases, both sides — state and non-state actors — view rape as a legitimate weapon of war. But problems of double standards arise when western nations unleash bullets and bombs, often under the false banner of humanitarian intervention, yet do not cater for the violent fallout that is traditionally borne by women. As far as Syria goes, regional players on both sides of the conflict — Russia, Turkey, Iran and NATO — must shoulder a certain amount of responsibility when it comes to women’s safety. These state actors, after all, are the architects of the war. And they are known to offer strategic support to groups on the ground as a shortcut to political expediency. All of which prolongs the participation of rebel outfits and extremist militias in the fighting; including those coming from abroad. Damascus and Moscow have long warned that Syria will not know peace as long as non-state actors continue to take up arms against the regime. Yet fighters like Amer Deghayes and Abu Yousef, among the last British enemy combatants, argue that they will only return home if the Assad regime can offer assurances that their laying down of weapons will bring an end to mass rapes and killings. And while such narratives are meant to reinforce notions of fighting for justice, both men have joined forces with the Al Qaeda-linked Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham that is accused of torture. Thus their reluctance to pack up has likely more to do with the threat of facing terror charges once on home turf rather than any heartfelt consideration for the Syrian people. Had the UN not been rendered so largely impotent over the decades, it could have perhaps imposed a no-fly zone over the entire country. Or at the very least evacuated women and children from those areas subjected to the most ferocious onslaught. But this would, of course, mean a comprehensive refugee package funded by international parties to the war. And as the whole world knows: the major powers are just not that interested. * Published in Daily Times, November 13th 2018.