Comradeship // Freechat

https://ssnp.online/%d9%85%d8%a8%d8%a7%d8%af%d9%89%d8%a1-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ad%d8%b2%d8%a8-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b3%d9%88%d8%b1%d9%8a-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%82%d9%88%d9%85%d9%8a-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a7%d8%ac%d8%aa%d9%85%d8%a7%d8%b9%d9%8a/

https://ssnp.online/%d8%ba%d8%a7%d9%8a%d8%a9-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ad%d8%b2%d8%a8-%d9%88%d8%ae%d8%b7%d8%aa%d9%87/

They have a website (link is in arabic it might look funny without rendering).

I don't have a good collected source but some bullet points about them:

• The symbol is a merger of the Christian Cross and the Islamic Crescent, creating a pinwheel iconography, has nothing to do with the Nazis. The party is secular but these are the two largest faiths of Syria and Lebanon and wanted to bridge religious sectarianism and antagonize the partition of governments by faith.
• They were founded during French-ruled Lebanon I believe, one of their main points is that they want to bring Syria and Lebanon back together under one state. They were partitioned into Christian dominated and Muslim dominated states from effectively one historic country/region. The Social National party is secularist and views the division on religious grounds as unnecessary (for instance, the president of Lebanon must be a Christian). So this aspect, of bringing together a reunited Syria, is their main claim in Syrian (and Lebanese) politics.
• Not fascists, take no inspiration from fascist movements.
• Not Marxist, though some members are (but in practice most Marxists in the region were usually Communists or Baathists). They are mostly secular vaguely left liberals, some conservatives, kinda like a KMT-type coalition (which can obviously devolve into something nasty/reactionary).
• Their main main allies have historically been other Syrian Nationalist parties, including the Arab Nationalists. SSNP believes in a historic and unified Syria, but recognize Syria is an Arab nation, and wants to first build a Syrian state and then a greater Arab state. Their disagreements with states like the United Arab Republic then are, order of operations based. They often had issue with Syria being dictated by a power centered in Egypt. The Baathists (Arab Socialists) then, sat in the middle, viewing either route more from a Scientific Socialist lens, i.e., what is necessary to get the job done of defeating Imperialism. This made the Baath party and SSNP fairly good allies and they dominated the United Front in Syria basically until last year. They had some beef with Iraq Baath because it used the Neo-Colonial Iraq borders and didn't align its interests solely with the historic "fertile crescent", historic Syria. The Baath trying to exercise a more practical reality with sharing a country with Persians and Kurds gave them real differences. SSNP had decent ties to the Palestinians and the Communists, or rather, they often had enough common cause to work together.
• Like basically every major party in the region, they have an armed wing distinct from the Syrian Army.
• They generally do not like the new regime, are critical, and will likely dip in and out of armed struggle with it, but are willing to work with it to secure Syrian interests (in practice -- combatting Zionism mainly).
• One last thing, their party interests might seem quite niche, and it is. They are quite institutional, and being coalition members in the previous state, they maintained a lot of independent power alongside the Baathists. They were also big historically in diaspora communities. In the region, a lot of parties basically propose a model of government, more-so than a specific ideology. Or rather, main distinguishers of their ideology is their vision of statecraft, because these are countries that sprang into existence during anti-colonial resistance or overthrow of monarchal regimes. Though, this may not be foreign to Leftists after all.