IT IS GENERALLY BELIEVED THAT AMONG THE
ARAB REGIMES SYRIA IS THE MOST IMPLACABLE ENEMY OF ISRAEL
The
current uprising in SYRIA is challenging the regime which has held power in the
country since the 1960s. While it is impossible not to feel both sympathy for
the protesters and distress at the tactics employed by the government to keep
its hold on power, it is important to keep in mind the bigger picture:
The
fall of the current regime would greatly increase the likelihood that SYRIA
will precipitate a war against ISRAEL. While similar arguments have been made
about other recent uprisings in the MIDDLE EAST, the ethnic composition of SYRIA
and the history of the ruling regime there exacerbate this possibility.
It
is generally believed that among the ARAB regimes SYRIA is the most implacable enemy
of ISRAEL. This is a misperception. In fact, the SYRIAN regime is the only one which
actually prefers – both practically and ideologically – that there be a Jewish state in the MIDDLE EAST, both
now and in the future.
Background Information:
UNDERSTAND THE ALAWITES
Since
the 1960s, SYRIA has been controlled by the Alawites, under the leadership of the Assad family. In order to
understand the workings of the SYRIAN regime, therefore, it is necessary to
better understand the Alawites – a
highly distinctive non-Muslim sect with no theological or territorial
objections to a Jewish state.
The Alawites’ religious beliefs suggest
that they are pro-Jewish and anti-Sunni. They believe that two of God’s
incarnations were Joshua Ben-Nun, the original Jewish conqueror of the Land of ISRAEL, and the fourth Caliph, Ali,
who was murdered by the Sunnis. They
believe in reincarnation, regard the Pillars
of Islam as purely symbolic, do not fast during Ramadan or make pilgrimage
to Mecca, have no mosques or indeed any public worship, celebrate Christmas, Easter
and Epiphany, and traditionally wear crosses like Christians. In all of these respects they differ not only from Sunnis but also from Shiites.
FRENCH MANDATE AFTER THE FIRST WORLD
WAR: THE ALAWITES PETITIONED THE FRENCH FOR AN INDEPENDENT STATE
Persecuted
as heretics by the dominant Muslims,
the Alawites took refuge in the mountains
of northwestern SYRIA, where they maintained a precarious autonomy. Following
the establishment of the FRENCH Mandate after the First World War, the FRENCH
set up an autonomous region for the Alawites
in their homeland. The Alawites
petitioned the FRENCH for an independent state, but their petitions were
rejected and the territory was added to the Sunni-dominated state of SYRIA. The Alawites attempted to rebel against the Sunnis in 1946 and again in 1952, but they were put down.
Undaunted, they established footholds in the officers’ corps of the SYRIAN army
and the Ba’ath Party. They took
advantage of the confusion following the collapse of the UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC to
seize power in the 1960s, and they have controlled SYRIA ever since.
PROJECT AN IMAGE OF CHAMPIONING ARABISM
BY UNRELENTINGLY REJECTING ISRAEL AND FLIRTING WITH ISRAEL'S AVOWED ENEMIES
The Alawites are outnumbered in SYRIA by
their traditional and theological enemies, the Sunnis, by a margin of 70 to 12 percent. Thus, in order to
legitimize their rule among the Sunni
majority, they must publicly project an image of championing Arabism by unrelentingly rejecting ISRAEL
and flirting with ISRAEL'S avowed enemies.
Consequently,
when the ARAB states actually had some hope of defeating ISRAEL militarily,
before the EGYPTIAN government entered into peace negotiations with ISRAEL in
the second half of the 1970s, the Alawites
had to actually go to war with ISRAEL in 1973 to 'keep up appearances'. However, for the last 30 years they have
adopted a much safer strategy of demonstrative
public rhetoric against ISRAEL and any ARAB regimes which have signed peace
treaties with ISRAEL, combined with broadly-publicized support for
non-governmental Muslim groups that
resist ISRAEL.
Background Information: See NEW
ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST REGIME IN SYRIA IN ORDER TO REACTIVATE SAUDI ARABIA’S
AND USA ARAMCO TRANS ARABIAN OIL PIPELINE? http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/01/strait-of-hormuz-and-syria.html
ASIDE FROM THE 1973 WAR, SYRIA HAS
ALMOST COMPLETELY AVOIDED ANY DIRECT CLASHES WITH ISRAEL
Nonetheless,
this is all just a show. Aside from the 1973 war, they have almost completely
avoided any direct clashes with ISRAEL. When confronted with a serious threat
from their real enemies, the Sunnis,
the Alawites have shown their true
colors: In 1976, at the beginning of the LEBANESE Civil War, when it looked as
though the Palestinian-led coalition
might take control of LEBANON, SYRIA’S army went into LEBANON to save the Maronite Christians from defeat. Also,
in February 1982, in response to a series of terrorist attacks by the Muslim Brotherhood, the SYRIAN army
invaded the city of Hama, the stronghold of the Brotherhood, killing roughly 30,000 people and cowing the Sunnis into submission.
Background
Information: See GEO STRATEGIC NIGHTMARE
TO BE OR NOT TO BE?
The Alawites are a purely ancestral
religious group and like other groups of this type – Jews, Maronites, Armenians and Druze
– their basic loyalty is to their own particular group rather than any larger
unit they may seem to be part of. Even if members of these groups happen to
speak Arabic, they do not
necessarily understand or publicly present themselves as being 'Arabs', doing so only when it seems to
be politically expedient. Thus Arabic-speaking
Jews, Maronites, and Armenians almost never present
themselves as being 'Arabs', while Druze judiciously do this in SYRIA and LEBANON
but not in ISRAEL. Similarly, Alawites,
overwhelmingly concentrated in SYRIA, naturally find it convenient and in fact indispensable
to publicly claim to be Arabs, but
this does not reflect their real loyalties.
SHIITES “MINORITIES” OF IRAN AND LEBANON
JOIN FORCES WITH ALAWITE MINORITIES IN SYRIA
Isolated
by their idiosyncratic religion, the Alawites
have, since the IRANIAN Revolution, turned to the most reliable allies they
could find – the Shiites of IRAN and
LEBANON. These groups could be convinced that the Alawite religion was relatively similar to their own, and were also
generally isolated and desperately in need of allies. The defiant attitude which these allies have shown toward ISRAEL and the
UNITED STATES is of incalculable benefit, as well, to the image of the SYRIAN regime
in the eyes of the Sunni masses in SYRIA.
ALAWITES THEMSELVES ARE NOT
THEOLOGICALLY ANTI-ISRAEL
Nonetheless,
it must be emphasized that the Alawites
themselves are not theologically anti-ISRAEL and have no interest in
imperialistic religion. A number of points emerge from this understanding of
the SYRIAN Alawite regime. ISRAELI
policymakers would be well-advised to take heed and plan their strategies
accordingly:
FROM ISRAEL’S PERSPECTIVE, IT IS FAR
BETTER FOR THE ALAWITES TO MAINTAIN POWER IN SYRIA THAN FOR A SUNNI REGIME TO
TAKE CONTROL THERE.
The Alawites are currently governing and
politically stifling a population of 14 million Arabic-speaking Levantine
Muslims. These Muslims are
particularly dangerous to ISRAEL because they are of the same ethnicity as the
Palestinians — this is not just a matter of modern pan-Arab ideology.
If a
Sunni regime were to rule SYRIA, any
wide-scale ISRAELI-Palestinian
clash, such as Operation Cast Lead, would likely trigger an emotional response,
pulling SYRIA into an international war with ISRAEL, regardless of the
consequences. This represents a much more serious danger to ISRAEL than the
fall of the Mubarak regime in EGYPT, where popular attachment to the Palestinians is much more superficial.
WHILE AN OPEN ALLIANCE BETWEEN ISRAEL
AND THE ALAWITE REGIME IS IMPOSSIBLE, it is possible for the
leaders of the two countries to develop tacit understandings, whereby they
would essentially coordinate actions to support their countries' common goal of
combating Sunni hegemony and
radicalism.
SYRIA WILL NOT ACCEPT A PEACE TREATY
WITH ISRAEL, NO MATTER WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE,
because it would delegitimize the regime. The Sunni regimes of EGYPT and JORDAN, on the other hand, could accept
such treaties because there is a well established tradition within Sunni Islam of religious thinking being
subordinate to the political decisions of its leaders. The Alawites do not have this luxury.
IT IS CURRENTLY IMPOSSIBLE TO REMOVE
SYRIA FROM ITS ALLIANCE WITH IRAN AND HIZBALLAH.
The Alawites cannot openly ally with
ISRAEL and they are not foolish enough to switch to a partnership with the AMERICANS, who have repeatedly demonstrated
themselves to be unreliable allies.
ALAWITES DO NOT HAVE SUCH APOCALYPTIC
WORLDVIEWS AS RADICAL SHIITES. The stronger the Alawites are, relative to their Shiite allies, the more they will be
able to dictate the terms of the alliance, which will inevitably have a moderating
influence because they do not have the same apocalyptic worldview as the
radical Shiites.
JUST ONE YEAR AFTER SYRIA ENDED ITS
29-YEAR OCCUPATION OF LEBANON, WAR BETWEEN HIZBALLAH AND ISRAEL BROKE OUT IN
2006
For example, the situation in LEBANON
from 1976 until 2005, when SYRIAN occupying forces were able to keep the
situation there under control, was preferable from ISRAEL’S standpoint to the
current situation, as there are no longer internal checks on Hizballah. It is
no accident, then, that war broke out between Hizballah and ISRAEL in 2006,
just one year after SYRIA ended its 29-year occupation of LEBANON.
THE ALAWITE REGIME IS IMMEASURABLY
STRENGTHENED ON THE SUNNI STREET BY ISRAELI AND AMERICAN ACCUSATIONS THAT IT IS
PART OF THE 'AXIS OF EVIL', that it supports Hizballah and Hamas,
etc. It is therefore in ISRAEL’S interest to publicly make such accusations
(whether or not they happen to be true).
Background Information: See INCREASED
IRANIAN INFLUENCE IN SYRIA PROVOKED ISRAEL TO CHANGE ITS LONGSTANDING TACTICS
REGARDING SYRIA
By John
Myhill via
BESA
Perspectives
No comments:
Post a Comment