By Dr. Steve Carol
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
The recently released Iraq Study Group has various experts voicing suggestions as to how to engage Syria in a way beneficial to the United States. Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a D.C. based think tank suggests, at a November 27th seminar funded by the U.S. Institute of Peace, that Syria is a "weak state that has very little to offer the United States . . . or its neighbors either in peace or war." Taking another tack, Robert Malley, a Clinton administration peace negotiator, envisions Syrians and Israelis seated side-by-side negotiating.
But this raises some immediate questions. If Syria is so weak, why is the path of little resistance being taken? If terrorist-sponsoring Syria is so weak, why didn't the United States deal with Syria's aiding and abetting the so-called "insurgents" in Iraq, who have infiltrated across the Syrian-Iraqi frontier? Why didn't Washington act against a regime that for nearly three decades has caused the deaths of americans, other Westerners and Israelis? Why hasn't the United Nations taken forceful action through the use of punitive sanctions in response to Syria's continued political assassination of opponents in Lebanon? The murders of Rafik Hariri and most recently, Christian leader Pierre Gemayel are cases in point. Lastly, why, if Syria is so weak, didn't Israel respond to its continued funneling of weapons, munitions, men, material and funding to Hezbollah forces that attacked Israel for 34 days this past summer? If Syria is so weak why has Syria spoken and acted belligerently recently creating a "Liberation Front for the Golan Heights" vowing to use Hezbollah-like tactics to get what it wants? It is hard to believe that the U.S. fears Syria, or for that matter Israel fears Syria. Is it plain lack of will on the part of both governments?
The arabs have learned well that photo-ops are cheap and easy. The tactic of shaking hands and signing paperwork results in tangible Israeli land concessions in exchange for nothing more than verbal pledges which are never kept. For example, every agreement reached between the Israelis and Palestinians since 1993 whether at a table, on the White House lawn or elsewhere has failed. The arabs continue to talk the talk but not walk the walk. They have promised to end terrorism, incitement against Jews in general and Israel in particular; they have promised to renounce their declared intention to eradicate Israel. Nothing of the sort has occurred. The reality of the situation has shown the world, more terrorism, homicide bombings, incessant rocket fire, kidnappings and murder. The final goal is not a "two state solution" (in reality a "three state solution, for Jordan already is the first "Palestinian" state); it is not the end of "occupation" or a "solution to the problem of a security barrier or a refugee problem; the final goal clearly stated by the overwhelming masses in the arab and Muslim worlds is a "one state" solution – the eradication of Israel.
Israel is a Jewish state. It is a non-Islamic state and as such will not be tolerated nor left in peace in the Middle East. In a like vein Christians in Lebanon, the Christians in Bethlehem, the Copts in Egypt, and the Christians and animists in Southern Sudan, are being driven out or eliminated.
Despite the Syrian actions and threats outlined above, Syria now wants to be rewarded for cooperating with the U.S. on Iraq. It expects the United States to pressure Israel into relinquishing the Golan Heights. It expects the United States to give it a free hand in Lebanon, as it received after the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. It was then Secretary of State James Baker who gave the green light for Syria's continued occupation of Lebanon. Now, he heads the Iraq Study Group whose report is expected to recommend more of the same. However, appeasement of Syria has not worked. No one can cite any time in history when appeasement has worked. as albert Einstein famously put it: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results."
To appease Syria now would be the height of folly. Syria, and its strategic ally Iran, expect the United States (Europe would eagerly follow) to sacrifice Israel's security and force it into granting greater and greater territorial concessions. Like Czechoslovakia in 1938, first Israel is to be stripped of its defensive buffer and then, virtually helpless, be sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. Like Israel, Czechoslovakia had a formidable army, but when the end came in March 1939, it was not enough.
Israel will not go quietly into the night or at least we would hope not. an Israel backed against the wall could tumble everyone down with them, so it is best not to allow Israel to be jeopardized with the threat of annihilation. What would happen to the remaining population of a destroyed Israel? What would become of its remaining, untouched weaponry? Would the arabs get both and then turn on the US and Europe with the weapons after killing the Jews? Shouldn't Europe be petrified of arabs getting their hands on the spoils of a dead Israel?
Engage Syria? Yes, not via talk and appeasement, but rather with an ultimatum. Lack of compliance should be followed by a military strike which will send a powerful message to the Syrian regime of Bashir assad that he cannot allow terrorist reinforcements to cross into Iraq. He should not give sanctuary and succor to terrorist leaders such as Khaled Meshaal, and terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the PFLP-GC. Despite the "show of a withdrawal" from Lebanon, he must not continue to control the destiny of that country through assassination via his murderous security apparatus.
We all want peace. No less a person than our first president and founding father, President George Washington cautioned americans by stating: "If we desire to secure peace . . . it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."
as Iran races, seemingly unimpeded, towards completion of its own nuclear weapons, the time for dealing with Syria is now. Syria possesses chemical weapons, and SCUD missiles. It is widely believed by several intelligence agencies, including those of the US. Russia and Israel, that it has the components of Saddam's WMDs hidden in the Beka Valley of Lebanon and elsewhere within Syria. To engage Syria now will be less costly than later. The same goes for Iran. To delay means dealing with an Iranian-Syrian alliance against the United States, the West, Israel, and moderate arab regimes. Through the use of nuclear blackmail the strategic balance on the entire planet will shift.
Dr. Steven Carol
Prof. of History (retired)
Official historian on The Middle East Radio Forum www.middleeastradioforum.org
Senior Fellow: Center for advanced Middle East Studies www.camesinfo.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement