Let’s talk about the flags because most people are using symbols without understanding the historical weight.
The green-white-black Syrian flag with three red stars is polarized right now. It has been treated strictly as the "rebel flag," but reducing this symbol to a single modern faction is a mistake.
This is the 1932 Independence Flag. It was designed and adopted long before the current conflict, and long before the Baath party ever took power. It represents the birth of the sovereign nation and its liberation from the French Mandate. The three stars originally signified the distinct districts that united to form a singular state.
The old flag was red at the top because it was originally adopted back in 1958 during the United Arab Republic (the brief political merger between Syria and Egypt.) It used the pan-Arab colors, where the red band specifically symbolized revolutionary blood and the struggle for independence.
That old flag had only two stars. While they technically represented the Syria-Egypt union, within the domestic Syrian reality, people effectively saw them as representing the two main historical power hubs of the country: Damascus and Aleppo.
What’s about the "two stars versus three stars" debate is that the Baathist regime itself used a three-star flag for nearly a decade. In 1963, they changed the red flag to have three green stars because they were desperately trying to manifest a new union between Syria, Egypt, and Iraq. The merger completely tanked and never happened, but they kept the three stars on the government flag until the 1970s anyway.
Including Deir el-Zawr (as the third star) means the flag finally recognizes that Syria isn't just an isolated political axis between the two biggest western cities. It explicitly includes the east, the Euphrates valley, and the full geography of the country.
The 1932 flag is only historical. The rebels recently figured out they could dust it off and use it for their movement, but they didn't invent it and they don't own it. Even Assad supporters have every right to use this flag if they want to, because there is nothing inherently wrong about it, it represents the history of the country, but never the property of armed group claimed it first.
Then there is the Palestinian flag, and we need to be completely honest about its ideological roots. From an indigenous standpoint, it feels incredibly over-Arabized, and there is a valid reason to push back against it if you oppose pan-Arabism.
It is almost a carbon copy of the 1916 Arab Revolt flag, which was heavily influenced by British diplomat Mark Sykes and the Hashemite leadership to unite various regions under a single, massive pan-Arab identity, the colors are strictly imperial dynastic markers (Black - Abbasids, White - Umayyads, Green - Fatimids and Red - Hashemites.)
When you look at this flag, you aren't looking at a symbol that grew organically from the ancient ethnicity of the local people who have belonged to that specific soil for millennia. It frames a deeply distinct indigenous population through a pan-Arab lens.
This flag presents a real ideological contradiction. It subordinates a highly specific, rooted identity to an artificial geopolitical movement that historically smoothed over the unique cultural nuances of the Levant.
By the way, speaking of completely fabricated narratives, you'll often see this a specific blue-and-white flag with a yellow Star of David, claiming it was the "original 1939 flag of Palestine" because it printed in an old Larousse dictionary, and however, this flag was never used officially for Palestine. During the entire British Mandate era, the only official flags were the British Union Jack used for shipping. This specific one was created and used by Zionist organizations and a couple of their trading ships.
Then we have to talk about Iraq, because quite frankly, I absolutely despise the Saddam-era flag, and you shouldn't be used it unless you are completely out of your mind.
The old Baathist three-star design was stained with the blood of genocidal campaigns against the Kurds and domestic purges. Getting rid of those stars in 2008 was a necessary step toward stripping away the dictaror's legacy.
Now, I still don't think the current Iraqi flag is perfect by any means. It’s way too explicitly Islamic because it retains the phrase "Allahu Akbar". Indigenous Christians (like the Assyrians, Chaldeans), Mandaeans, and other non-Muslim communities have lived there since long before the Islamic conquests. The inclusion a religious slogan on a national flag completely alienates the oldest living heritage of Mesopotamia, so while it's a massive step up from Saddam's genocidal aesthetic, it still falls short of representing the actual ethnic composition.
If you want a historic alternative that makes sense, the 1959 Mesopotamian flag was a genuinely good solution because it was entirely secular and geographically rooted. It tied the national identity to the land and rivers, explicitly honoring both of all of its diverse and history.
