|
The timing of the Israeli air raid
early on January 30 on a Syrian target, that has yet to be
identified, coincided with a hard to refute indications that the
“regime change” in Syria by force, both by foreign military
intervention and by internal armed rebellion, has failed, driving
the Syrian opposition in exile to opt unwillingly for
“negotiations” with the ruling regime, with the blessing of the
U.S., EU and Arab League, concluding, in the words of a Deutsche
Welle report on this February 2, that “nearly two years since the
revolt began, (Syrian President Bashar Al-) Assad is still sitting
comfortably in presidential chair.”
Nonetheless, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu keeps
saying that Israel is preparing for “dramatic changes” in Syria,
but senior Israeli foreign ministry officials accused him of
“fear-mongering on Syria” to justify his ordering what the
Russians described as the “unprovoked” raid, according to The
Times of Israel on January 29. Another official told the Israeli
Maariv that no Israeli “red lines” were crossed with regard to the
reported chemical weapons in Syria to justify the raid. On January
16 Israel’s National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said
there was “no evidence” to any Syrian steps to use such weapons.
On last December 8 UN Chief Ban Ki-moon said there were “no
confirmed reports” Damascus was preparing to use them. Three days
later U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said: “We have not seen
anything new” on chemical weapons “indicating any aggressive
steps” by Syria. On January 31 NATO Chief Fogh Rasmussen said: “I
have no new information about chemical weapons (in Syria).”
Syria’s Russian ally has repeatedly confirmed what Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov said on February 2 that “we have reliable
information” the Syrian government maintains control of chemical
weapons and “won’t use” them. That’s what Syria itself keeps
repeating, and “there is no particular reason why Israel is to be
believed and Syria not,” according to a Saudi Gazette editorial on
February 3.
More likely Israel is either trying to escalate militarily to
embroil an unwilling United States in the Syrian conflict, in a
too late attempt to pre-empt a political solution, out of a belief
that the fall of the Al – Assad regime will serve Israel’s
strategy, according to the former head of the Military
Intelligence Directorate, (Major general, reserve) Amos Yaldin, or
to establish for itself a seat at any international negotiating
table that might be detrimental in shaping a future regime in
Syria.
Escalating militarily at a time of political de-escalation of the
military solution in Syria will not secure a seat for Israel in
any forum. This is the message that the Israeli chief of General
Staff, Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz, should have heard during his latest
five – day visit in the U.S. from his host in Washington, chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey; the head of
Israel’s National - Security Bureau, Maj. Gen. (Res.) Ya'akov
Amidror, who was in Moscow at the same time, should have heard a
similar message from his Russian hosts.
The Israeli military intervention at this particular timing fuels
a Syrian fire that has recently started to look for firefighters
among the growing number of the advocates of dialogue,
negotiations and political solutions both nationally, regionally
and internationally.
The escalating humanitarian crisis and the rising death toll in
Syria have made imperative either one of two options: A foreign
military intervention or a political solution. Two years on since
the U.S., EU, Turkish and Qatari adoption of a “regime change” in
Syria by force, on the lines of the “Libyan scenario,” the first
option has failed to materialize.
With the legitimate Syrian government gaining the upper hand
militarily on the ground, the inability of the rebels to
“liberate” even one city, town or enough area in the countryside
to be declared a “buffer zone” or to host the self-proclaimed
leadership of opposition in exile, which failed during the Paris –
hosted “Friends of Syria” meeting on January 28 to agree on a
“government – in – exile,” more likely because of this very
reason, the second option of a political solution is left as the
only way forward and as the only way out of the bloodshed and the
snowballing humanitarian crisis.
The Israeli raid sends a message that the military option could
yet be pursued. The rebels who based their overall strategy on a
foreign military intervention have recently discovered that the
only outside intervention they were able to get was from the
international network of al-Qaeda and the international
organization of the Muslim Brotherhood. No surprise then that the
frustrated Syrian rebels are loosing ground, momentum and morale.
An Israeli military intervention
would undoubtedly revive their morale, but temporarily, because it
does not potentially guarantee that it will succeed in improving
their chances where failure doomed the collective efforts of all
the “Friends of Syria,” whose numbers dwindled over time from more
than one hundred nations about two years ago to about fifty in
their last meeting in Paris.
Such intervention would only promise more of the same, prolonging
the military conflict, shedding more of Syrian blood, exacerbating
the humanitarian crisis, multiplying the numbers of those
displaced inside the country and the Syrian refugees abroad,
postponing an inevitable political solution, and significantly
rallying more Syrians in support of the ruling regime in defending
their country against the Israeli occupier of their Syrian Golan
heights, thus isolating the rebels by depriving them from whatever
support their terrorist tactics have left them.
More importantly however, such an Israeli intervention risks a
regional outburst if not contained by the world community or if it
succeeds in inviting a reciprocal Syrian retaliation. Both Syrians
and Israelis were on record in the aftermath of the Israeli raid
that the bilateral “rules of engagement” have already changed.
All the “Friends of Syria” have been on record that they were
doing all they could to enforce a “buffer zone” inside Syria; they
tried to create it through Turkey in northern Syria, through
Jordan in the south, through Lebanon in the west and on the
borders with Iraq in the east, but they failed to make it
materialize. They tried to enforce it by a resolution from the UN
Security Council, but their efforts were aborted three times by a
dual Russian – Chinese veto. They tried, unsuccessfully so far, to
enforce it outside the jurisdiction of the United Nations by
arming an internal rebellion, publicly on the payroll of Qatar and
Saudi Arabia, logistically supported by Turkey and the U.S.,
British, French and German intelligence services and spearheaded
mainly by the al-Qaeda – linked Al-Nusra Front, a rebellion
focusing on the peripheral areas sharing borders with Turkey,
Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, after the failure of an early attempt to
make the western Syrian port city of Latakia on the Mediterranean
play the role the city of Benghazi played in the Libyan “change of
regime.”
Now, Israel has stepped in the conflict, publicly for the first
time, to try its hands to enforce a “buffer zone” of its own in an
attempt to succeed where all the “Friends of Syria” have failed.
On February 3, British “The Sunday Times” reported that Israel is
considering creating a buffer zone reaching up to ten miles inside
Syria, modelled on a similar zone it created in southern Lebanon
in 1985 from which it was forced to withdraw unconditionally by
the Hezbullah – led and Syrian and Iranian – supported Lebanese
resistance in 2000. Israeli mainstream daily Maariv (“evening” in
Hebrew) the next day confirmed the Times report, adding the zone
would be created in cooperation with local Arab villages on the
Syrian side of the UN-monitored buffer zone, which was created on
both sides of the armistice line after the 1973 Israeli – Syrian
war.
Israel in fact have been paving the way materially on the ground
for an Israeli – created buffer zone. Earlier, in a much less
publicized development, Israel allowed the UN-monitored buffer
zone between Syria and the Israeli - occupied Syrian Golan Heights
to be overtaken by the “Islamist” Syrian rebels. The European
Jewish Press reported on January 1, 2013 that the Israeli premier
Netanyahu, during a visit to the Israeli - occupied Golan Heights,
was informed the rebels “have taken up positions along the border
with Israel, with the exception of the Quneitra enclave.” Earlier
on last November 14 Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak was quoted
by the AP to confirm that the “Syrian rebels control almost all
the villages near the frontier with the Israeli – held Golan
Heights.” On December 13 Israeli “The Jerusalem Post” quoted a
“senior military source” as saying that “The rebel control of the
area does not require changes on our part.”
UN observers monitoring the zone number about one thousand. An
“Israeli officer” told a Mcclatchy reporter on last November 14
that the rebels in the zone are “fewer than 1,000 fighters.”
Canada withdrew its contingent of monitors last September; Japan
followed suit in January. In the previous month, France’s
ambassador to the UN, Gérard Araud, warned the UN peacekeeping
force on the Golan may “collapse,” according to The Times of
Israel, citing the London – based Arabic daily of Al – Hayat.
The 1974 armistice agreement prohibits the Syrian government from
engaging in military activity within the buffer zone; if it does
it would risk a military confrontation with Israel and, according
to Moshe Maoz, professor emeritus at Jerusalem's Hebrew
University, “The Syrian army doesn't have any interest in
provoking Israel,” because “Syria has enough problems.”
However it would be anybody’s guess to know for how long Syria
could tolerate turning the UN monitored demilitarized buffer zone,
with Israeli closed eyes, into a terrorist safe haven and into a
corridor of supply linking the rebels in Lebanon to their
“brethren” in southern Syria.
Israel did not challenge militarily the presence of the al – Qaeda
– linked rebels on its side of the supposedly demilitarized zone
nor did it complain to or ask the United Nations for a
reinforcement of the UN monitors there.
Ironically, Israel cites the presence of those same rebels along
the borders of the Israeli – occupied Golan Heights as the pretext
to justify “considering creating a buffer zone” inside Syria!
Nicola Nasser
is a veteran Arab journalist based in Bir Zeit, West Bank of the
Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. He can be cotacted at :
nassernicola@ymail.com.
The views expressed
are writer's own as there are disputes on either Assad's fall will
help Israel or make matters tough for the illegal Jewish state.
There is also a huge majority which believes that Assad regime has
internal understanding with Israel.
|
Comments
|
Quick links