You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Thanks PL! Again an important analysis of current events in Libya and Syria. Liked the analysis of differences between the two and recommending against intervention in the latter. I agree and always wonder why the Syrians are so interested in being bad boys when they could be like Turkey a much more effective secular democracy even with limits that could lead with open approaches to the world. Guess the answer may just be the corruption of the leadership!
To be accurate. Bashar Assad's government tried throughout the Bush adminstration to approach the US government seeking a rapprochement. they were repulsed each and every time they tried this. they also tried to come to an agreement with israel. my impression is that until the Likud came to power this was a real possibility but even before that the WH refused its assent to the Israelis on this preferring regime change to accomodation. this was originally the result of Cheney and Wolfowitz and by the time Obama took power the moment had just about passed. pl
A few years ago, the Elders of Alawites expressed their concern about Syria concluding a separate peace with Isael - at the cost of Al Haram Al Sharif.
They did not want the Alawite community - spread in Turkey, Syria, Lebanon to be identified as the "Judas of Islam".
There will not be a peace without Al Haram Al Sharif - not now and not ever; in my opinion.
Thanks PL! Again an important analysis of current events in Libya and Syria. Liked the analysis of differences between the two and recommending against intervention in the latter. I agree and always wonder why the Syrians are so interested in being bad boys when they could be like Turkey a much more effective secular democracy even with limits that could lead with open approaches to the world. Guess the answer may just be the corruption of the leadership!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 25 August 2011 at 08:06 AM
WRC
To be accurate. Bashar Assad's government tried throughout the Bush adminstration to approach the US government seeking a rapprochement. they were repulsed each and every time they tried this. they also tried to come to an agreement with israel. my impression is that until the Likud came to power this was a real possibility but even before that the WH refused its assent to the Israelis on this preferring regime change to accomodation. this was originally the result of Cheney and Wolfowitz and by the time Obama took power the moment had just about passed. pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 25 August 2011 at 08:52 AM
PL,
Spot on. Some day when the diplomatic history of our exchanges with Syria finally emerges, I'll wager there will be some great books.
By then, of course, the culprits on both sides will be long gone.
We got so, so close.
Posted by: Basilisk | 25 August 2011 at 02:47 PM
William R. Cumming:
You guess wrong.
A few years ago, the Elders of Alawites expressed their concern about Syria concluding a separate peace with Isael - at the cost of Al Haram Al Sharif.
They did not want the Alawite community - spread in Turkey, Syria, Lebanon to be identified as the "Judas of Islam".
There will not be a peace without Al Haram Al Sharif - not now and not ever; in my opinion.
Cease fire is still a possibility - I think.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 25 August 2011 at 09:47 PM
Babak
Syria doesn't control Jerusalem.
Posted by: Fred | 26 August 2011 at 09:58 AM
Fred:
You are missing the point.
Alawite sect is not going to risk - during the coming years - of having sold out Al Haram Al Sharif to Israel by agreeing to a separate peace.
They will be considered apostate traitors to Islam.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 26 August 2011 at 02:45 PM
Babak,
Whomevr signed a peace agreement would get blamed. The rest of the Alawite sect could disown those leaders at their convenience.
Posted by: fred | 26 August 2011 at 06:48 PM
fred:
Your view is a fantasy.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 27 August 2011 at 10:30 AM