The arrest of Amjad al-Youssef, associated with the Tadamon massacre, has revived a critical question that goes beyond the crime itself:
Does justice happen only when victims demand it…
or is it a fundamental responsibility of the state?
For any state seeking legitimacy, pursuing individuals accused of serious crimes should not be a political choice or a reaction to public pressure — it should be a basic and non-negotiable duty.
Yet, the reality perceived by many Syrians raises difficult questions.
How could a figure associated with one of the most widely documented atrocities remain free for such a long period after major political changes?
And why does the arrest happen now?
These questions are not necessarily about rejecting accountability —
but about concern that justice could become selective, applied at specific moments rather than as part of a consistent and comprehensive process.
In public discourse, a troubling idea is increasingly مطرح:
Do certain cases move forward only when public anger rises?
Could some arrests serve as political signals or tools of de-escalation rather than steps within a broader justice system?
Whether one agrees with these concerns or not, they reflect a clear gap in trust.
Real justice is not defined by the moment of arrest —
but by what follows:
An independent investigation,
a fair trial,
and accountability that reaches all those involved, without exception.
In many post-conflict societies, comprehensive accountability has been a cornerstone of stability.
Partial justice, on the other hand, often leaves unresolved tensions.
Today, Syrians are not only looking for arrests.
They are looking for clarity:
Is there a real plan to address past crimes?
Or are these isolated steps without a clear framework?
In the end, the principle is simple:
Justice is not a response to pressure —
it is a responsibility of the state.
And the longer it is delayed, the higher the cost for both society and the state.