by Aharon Lapidot
The situation in Syria
is very worrying. Each day that passes is another step toward
disintegration, which seems inevitable now. This week, we learned of the
resignation of the head of the Syrian National Council, Moaz al-Khatib,
an opposition leader considered to be a unifying figure. Almost
simultaneously, the Free Syrian Army announced that it did not recognize
Ghassan Hitto as the prime minister of the rebel government. Hitto had
been elected to the role by the heads of opposition factions several
days earlier.
Both of these events
further increase fears about the complete collapse of the Syrian state.
Unlike in Egypt, for example, where there were the Islamists on one side
and the military and secularists on the other, in Syria the rebels are
divided into dozens of factions conducting all-out war. And after the
resignation of Khatib, there apparently is no one with whom to hold a
serious discussion about the future of Syria after Bashar al-Assad
falls.
The day after Assad
falls will be a major nightmare for Syria's neighbors and for the world
as a whole. Unknown forces free of international commitments will get
their hands on unconventional weapons, particularly chemical weapons,
which, according to some reports, the Assad regime has already started
to use. Without consensus among the opposition factions, Syria could
sink into a bloody civil war, in which such weapons could be shot,
whether intentionally or not, across borders (i.e., toward Israel). We
saw cross-border arms fire toward Israel last week.
Another scenario is
that without agreed-upon leadership, Syria could be ripe for the
plucking by global jihadists, that is to say al-Qaida. This brings up a
fundamental question. U.S. President Barack Obama has likely been
presented a risk analysis about the downfall of the Assad regime. If
this is the case, why does Obama want, as he stated more than once while
in Jerusalem last week, to hasten the end of the Assad's rule?
Intervention in the national process of any people is very dangerous and
usually leads to results opposite of what were hoped for. (Bachir
Gemayel, anyone?)
It is no wonder that
rumors that Assad had been assassinated received much attention in
Israel on Saturday. Assad's downfall, as welcome and desirable as it may
be in any moral sense, will be like a violent rupture of a hornet's
nest.
An al-Qaida state to
the northeast, particularly one that shares a border with Hezbollah in
Lebanon, is a reality that no sane Israeli leader wants. The severity of
the situation explains Israel's reconciliation with Turkey. To restore
ties with our former friend, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was
willing to swallow national pride and apologize. This was a very small
price to be paid in exchange for vital cooperation.
At this point, it
appears Turkey is the only country in the region that can actually do
something, or at the very least keep the events in Syria in check until a
solution is found. Turkey is perhaps the only foreign entity with any
sort of legitimacy to intervene in Syria. A Turkish mandate in Syria, at
least until the situation stabilizes and a new government is elected by
the Syrian people, doesn't seem like a bad option at all.
Aharon Lapidot
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=3839
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment