| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Another Fantasy-Based Policymaking Update: Barry Rubin diagnoses a pervasive malady.
Astrange malady has apparently descended on part of Israel's, much of America's, and most of Europe's elite. Let's call it Syriantoxication, the belief that there is a real chance to make peace with Syria and--in its extreme version--that Lebanon should be sacrificed for that goal.To call this wishful thinking is understatement. Why is this happening in Israel?
Few Israelis believe that negotiations with Palestinians will lead anywhere. Those on the right don't want to do it, those in the center believe it can be done without harm and for limited benefit, those on the left pursue wishful thinking or at least see talks as a matter of duty.
There is, however, a group on the moderate left which thinks it must offer an alternative peace process. If the Palestinians will not do anything, they suggest, it's better to put the priority on Syria.
Much of this comes from Labor Party circles and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. In part, Barak seems concerned that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's concessions to the Palestinians could undermine security interests; in part, he wants to undermine Olmert in order to replace him.
Talk-with-Syria enthusiasts argue that country is a greater potential security threat to Israel than Palestinian terrorist attacks. Also, Syria sponsors Hizballah and can influence whether or not Israel is attacked from Lebanon. And if Syria could be won away from its alliance with Iran that step would be a strategic victory in weakening the region's radical forces.
There are, however, terrible dangers with this approach by those who should be supporting Lebanon's independence. First, there's no real evidence to believe in it. People blather on about Syria wanting peace or being ready to distance itself from Tehran without the slightest evidence or impressive logical argument.
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at December 13, 2007 10:01 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Great read! Worth the time.
Posted by: mountiangirl![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 13, 2007 10:16 AM
I look at the Syrians as a more dangerous version of the palestinians-only they have a nation, a functioning military and are acquiring more deadly weapons. Now what would make any Israeli think peace with Damascus is more possible than with the palestinians given these facts?
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 13, 2007 10:29 AM
The word "Syria" and the word "Syrians" hides, keeps hiding, the reality of the Alawites, and the Sunnis. The Alawites rule Syria, even though they make up only 12% of the population. If they ever lost their grip on the military, they would be wiped out by the Sunnis. How the Alawites came to power (the story begins when the French chose their Troupes Speciales from the minorities, the Alawites, the Armenians, the Druze, to help control the Muslims -- the Alawites are not, by the local Sunnis, considered to be real Muslims), how they maintain that power, and how the Western world could, if it chose, use its understanding of the vulnerability of the Alawites and play upon their fears (fears which the West does not understand, because it talks of the Alawites as if they are Muslims). But the Americans have relied on such clownish ambassadors in Damascus , as Edward Djerijian, who never understood a thing, and still does not, about Islam, and therefore about Muslims and Alawites in Syria, nor about Muslims and non-Muslims in the Middle East. This didn't prevent him from having a career as a Middle East expert in the State Department. It didn't prevent him from being appointed, by James Baker, as the head of Baker's very own and modestly-titled "James Baker Institute" at Rice University. It hasn't prevented Djerijian from continuing to assure us that "everyone" (!) "knows what a final settlement between Arabs and Israelis will look like" (by that he means more or less pushing Israel back to the pre-1967 armistice lines), when, as anyone who knows about Islam understands, the Arabs have no intention of permanently accepting the existence of an Infidel nation-state in the midst of Dar al-Islam no matter how much tinier it becomes.
The Alawites will never, and should never, be made to give up control of the army. Why? Because if they really are without power, then not only every Alawite village will be destroyed by marauding Sunni Muslims, but the Christians in Syria will, similarly, suffer what Christians in Iraq are now suffering. But that does not mean that the Alawites need to maintain permanent control of the civilian authority, and it certainly doesn't mean that the particular Alawite in power, Bashir al-Assad, needs to be permitted to continue his rule. He, and his henchmen, are expendable. There are other Alawites who may be appealed to, appealed to by the Americans to stage a coup, a coup to save the Alawites from their own, overreaching current dictator.
And then will there be hope for a semi-civilized Syria to emerge? Possibly. Meanwhile, let the Americans establish a Radio al-Shams, directed by, and with a staff and programs chosen by, Wafa Sultan -- and not the kind of staff members who, foolishly, have been chosen a bit too carelessly for other American-financed Arab-language stations.
Posted by: Hugh
at December 13, 2007 10:52 AM
To diss your friends to kowtow to your enemies is the height of immorality and foolishness.
The left is idiotic either in Israel or America.
They are either tying themselves up in conspiracy knots or being willing to do anything to be comfortable.
Guess we'll just win despite them and without them.
Afterwards they can come along boasting how prescient or misunderstood they were.
(am convinced 'Ehud' is not the Israeli word for stupid)
Posted by: dgene at December 13, 2007 11:09 AM
Hugh: "...when,as anyone who knows about Islam understands, the Arabs have no intention of permanently accepting the existence of an Infidel nation-state in the midst of Dar al-Islam no matter how much tinier it becomes".
That's the entire issue in a nutshell.
A compressed idea, that when opened, a thousand Jacks pop out, not just one. The entire MI conflict with Israel can be explained in those terms.
All else is details...Very good Hugh...
at December 13, 2007 11:23 AM
Peace talks with Israel? How would they benefit the Syrians?
It's hard to see. They would lose their status in the Muslim world (remember Egypt) and Assad would be a marked man.
Granted they'd get the back the Golan, but at what cost?
What is Barak thinking? Is he planning to offer Syria the Golan in return for a peace treaty that won't be honored? He's prepared to destroy the very country he wants to lead.
Posted by: PMK at December 13, 2007 5:34 PM
I'm pretty sure that peace will be made with Syria as a result of the resurgence of the Seleucid dynasty. Syria isn't beyond hope--a couple of thousand years ago there were civilized people ruling it.
Maybe an Alexander will emerge from the Balkans to make that happen again.
at December 13, 2007 11:18 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)