retour article original
par The Saker
"I will begin with a historical question. Many years ago I had the privilege to work with a most interesting Syrian lawyer whose father had been an influential Syrian personality. Here is what this friend of mine told me one day : "Arab nationalism in general, and Baathism in particular, was the creation of the European Masonic elites who used their local Masonic brethren to stir up various kinds of nationalisms, including artificially created one such as the anti-Syrian Lebanese nationalism. The main purpose of this plan was to prevent the emergence of a common Arab identity, especially a Muslim-Arab one. By stirring up local nationalisms the European colonial powers were implementing the old “divide and rule” policy. Furthermore, by putting Baathists into power, the Europeans could make sure that the nationalist Arab leaders would be secular and pliable to Europeans demands thanks to the Masonic backchannels of communication and pressure".
Is this summary correct ? Is the Baathist version of Arab nationalism really a Masonic ploy to keep control over the Middle-East ? Is it true that while Michel Aflaq was nominally a Greek Orthodox Christian, that in reality he was a Freemason ?"
Ghassan Kadi :
."Quite frankly, I find your friend’s statement both inaccurate and charged.
To begin with, there is no real difference between Baathism and any other Pan-Arab movement including Nasserism. They are all based on uniting Arabic language speakers. In reality, this argument is quite thin and does not have any historic and/or demographic foundation to underpin it.
Secondly, an Arab identity and a Muslim-Arab identity are two different things that are also ideologically and philosophically at odds. This is needless to say that the term Muslim-Arab identity is oxymoronic because, among other things, it excludes Arab Christians as well as non-Arab Christians (such as Aramaics) who and by virtue of the name of Muslim-Arab identity, do not have a place in which they can be included.
Furthermore, if the Baathist version is indeed a “Masonic ploy”, which I don’t believe it is, how does this make other versions of Arab Nationalism any different ?
It is possible that the manner in which your friend perceives Arab nationalism as a conspiracy (and the Arab World is indeed full of conspiracy theories) is indeed explained in his subtle remark that sees Muslim-Arab identity as the “real deal” and that anything else short of this is a diversion from truth. His negative and almost derogatory inference to leaders such as Baathist leaders as being “secular and pliable” to the West implies some covert Islamist mindset.
We must not forget that Arab Nationalism, Syrian Nationalism (as per the Syrian Socialist National Party [SSNP] doctrine), even the Lebanese Nationalism have all emerged in the first half of the 20th Century at a time when nationalism was at its peak in Europe. Nationalism was the then flavour of the month.
I cannot but be an incurable pacifist, and I do not make any apologies about it. Humanity has to rise above what divides it and look at different ways of binding people together rather than creating reasons for them to fight. But when people are drowning, they clutch at straws and they try to find strength in unity and this, I believe, is how passions like nationalism arise, especially when there is an “enemy” to fight and a reason to unite against him.
Back to your friend’s statement, Arabs and Muslims must stop the blame game and take responsibility for their failures without having to blame others. If indeed the Masonic movement plotted against Arabs and turned them against each other, Arabs must look inwardly at the seed of hatred they harbour for each other.
In summary and to put it in very simple terms, I find your friend’s letter to be typical of Islamist rhetoric when trying to take the guise of rationality, deep knowledge and comprehensive vision. This letter is of high significance because it elaborates the charged sentiments that Muslim youth are bombarded with when attempts are made to recruit them.
This letter clearly conveys the message that any political doctrine that is not based on seeking Muslim identity and unity is a deviation from the truth and is part of an anti-Muslim Western plot. And even though it refers to the identity it seeks as Muslim/Arab, the message is very clear.
When Islamist recruiters approach younger and less educated Muslim youth, among fundamentalist teachings and many other charged messages they give them, they often fill their heads with conspiracy theories and stories of injustice that has been inflicted upon them, thereby inflaming anger and hatred for every non-Muslim. This is their guaranteed recipe to send people in the pursuit of revenge".
-"Now that Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein have been overthrown and that only Bashar al-Assad remains in power, with great difficulty, do Arab nationalism, secularism and Baathism have any future, or will they be replaced by religious movements ?"
"To begin with, to the displeasure of the West, we cannot put President Bashar Assad in the same basket as that of Saddam and Gaddafi. The fact the Bashar is still standing is a testimony of this difference. Unlike Saddam and Gaddafi (whom I shall not totally demonize because they were not the be all and end all of evil as the West describes them), Bashar has huge popular support, both among his civilians and the armed forces.
When Iraq was invaded, few Iraqis stood by Saddam and the same happened with Gaddafi. However, Bashar enjoys a very high popularity rate, and according to reliable estimates, the figure stands at least at 70 % and is on the rise. It was that support first and foremost that gave him the longevity that his enemies did not expect him to have.
That said, to say that the age of Arab Nationalism in Syria now is on the decline would be a gross understatement. With all the let downs from Arab “brothers” and conspiracies to destroy Syria and kill its people, the word “Arab” is regarded as synonymous to traitor and enemy of Syria.
The same applies to Islamists. However, we have to be realistic. Without a proper reform of Islam, a reform that will see that all forms of violence are alien to its true message, there will be no guarantee that ISIS will not be able to resurrect itself in one form or another sooner or later. On the short term however, the Syrian Government and its army of loyal citizens hopefully will not allow any over-the-top and politically-correct freedom given to religious zealots that can be abused and allowed to be turned into another disaster.
When Syria rises victorious, if anything at all, this war is bolstering the passion for Syrian nationhood and the unity of Greater Syria. The ideology that is shaping up as the biggest winner is no doubt that of the SSNP".
-"What is the real role and function of the Lebanese Army today ? Does it still have a purpose or has Hezbollah become the de-facto Army of Lebanon ? How much cooperation, if any, is there between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army today ? Can the latter still be of some use to defend the country against external (Israel) or internal (Daesh) enemies ?"
"The real role of the Lebanese Army is, in practical terms, an ever-changing one. It all depends on who is at the helm. Back in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, its role seemed to be restricted to curbing the PLO as well as street riots.
Historically, the Lebanese Army was seen as the apparatus that protected the elite “Maronite Political Entity”, but it took a neutral side during the Civil War up until the then Army Chief Michel Aoun took it upon himself to fight both Syria and the “Lebanese Forces” in the mid 1980’s.
Many things have changed since, and right now March the 14th Coalition sympathizers allege that the Lebanese Army takes its orders from Hezbollah because at the present time it has good relationships with Hezbollah. On the other hand, “Internal Security” (ie the Police Force) is loyal to Hariri and its ex-chief. Current minister of justice Ashraf Rifi is openly a Hariri man who headed the Sunni militia in Tripoli when those militia were clashing with Alawite militia loyal to Hezbollah.
In any event, the Lebanese Army is not well-equipped, and as a regular army, it is only trained for conventional wars. It does not have an effective air force and it can never win against the far more technologically-advanced “Israeli Defence Force”.
With that said, the Lebanese Army displayed quite a bit of resilience and determination in its small wars against Fateh Al Islam (at the Al-Bared Palestinian camp) back in 2005 and later on against Ahmed Al-Assir’s gang and some Islamist gangs in Tripoli in 2014 and 2015, respectively. It can definitely hold ground against any ISIS incursions and possibly even gain ground from ISIS, but this will all depend on what warfare technology ISIS brings into the battle.
I believe that given its current stature and capabilities, the Lebanese Army can at best have a supportive role to the much more mobile and stealthy Hezbollah who specializes in asymmetrical warfare".
-"Who killed Rafik Hariri and why ?"
"In a recent article that was published on The Saker titled “War On Syria ; Not Quite According to Plant, Part 2, The Plot, I have provided my take and analysis of this assassination.
Murder needs motive and potential gains. Syria had all to lose and none to gain in killing Hariri. To begin with, it was a slap in the face for Syria given that Syrian forces were still in Lebanon at that time and considered to be the custodians of law and order.
The Hariri murder carries the hallmarks and fingerprints of Mossad and the CIA, not to totally vindicate the Saudis. After all, they are all the biggest beneficiaries.
The murder led to a speedy and unplanned withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon, and in more than one way, paved the road for the “War On Syria”.
After all and immediately following the murder, the demonizing of President Bashar Assad took a level akin to the demonizing of Saddam prior to the invasion(s) of Iraq. Secondly, many parts of Lebanon, especially in the North and North East became open game for anti-Syrian fighters and sympathizers, and those groups played a huge role later on in capturing the very strategic Qalamoun region and linked terrorist in the northern parts of Syria with the South.
Whilst the link of the USA/Israel/Saudi Arabia with the assassination of Hariri is something I cannot prove as such, the pieces of the puzzle fit in very well if we look at them all in their entirety".
-"Who killed Bachir Gemayel ? Do you believe that it was really Habib Shartouni or was this a carefully staged provocation ?"
"All indications are that Shartouni singlehandedly planned and killed Bachir Gemayel. As a matter of fact, at the outset, Inaam Raad the then president of the SSNP of which Shartouni is a member, denounced Shartouni and stated that he acted solo. Later on of course, Shartouni was considered as an SSNP hero.
Gemayel had many enemies, and it happened that Shartouni had access to the building where a meeting was going to be held, and the rest is now history.
But once again, just like in the case of Hariri’s murder that happened more than two decades later, the question is about who was set to gain from Gemayel’s assassination ? Definitely not Israel, not America, and none but the “Axis of Resistance”. So whether Shartouni indeed worked alone or not, his action played a significant role in changing the course of events that followed the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and perhaps was significant in turning Israel’s military success on its head".
-"I have always believe that the Israelis had very high level accomplices inside the Syrian government and that they could never have killed Imad Mughniyah without such assistance. Mughniyah’s widow make exactly the same accusation from her refuge in Iran. Do you agree with this thesis and, if yes, do you know who was involved and why ? And why has Hezbollah not avenged the murder of Mughniyah yet ?"
"There is no doubt that corruption was rife in Syria during the days of father Assad. Many corrupt officials and army personnel however were from the old and faithful guards. Hafez Assad was able to wield them to a certain extent, but he could not get rid of them out right without risking political instability.
When Bashar took the reins in the middle of 2000, he tried to clean up, and he did, but neither fast nor deep enough. If there was any reason for a popular uprising in Syria and demands for reform, that was it but that was not at all the case as the West tried to portray the “War On Syria” to be.
It is highly likely that the assassination of Mughniyah involved corruption and a hefty Mossad bribe, but if this was the case, then the culprit would have been very close to President Assad. In such an event, Hezbollah had two choices ; either to seek revenge and risk its relationship with the President, or bite the bullet. Nasrallah chose the latter.
That said, it is rumoured that a corrupt official was eventually and conveniently “punished” at the right time without any questions raised".
-"If Syria prevails in this war against Daesh and their AngloZionist sponsors, do you expect Syria and Lebanon to become one country and fully reunite, or will the Syrians only remain a military presence for the protection of Lebanon from the Zionists and Takfiris ?"
"If the Syrians and Lebanese wake up and realize that the differences that separate them are a whim and that they are much better off united and seriously wish to unite, then no one can stop them.
Any serious opposition to such a prospect will come from Lebanon, not from Syria. Syrians are taught from as early as school days that Lebanon was snatched away from Syria by the Sykes-Picot Accord that saw Syria divided. In Lebanon however, and a hundred years later, and even though Lebanon has turned into a virtual failed state, there are still many elements that would staunchly stand against any such union and remain strongly adherent to an independent Lebanon.
The Lebanese opposition to any union with Syria will mainly come from what is left of the “Maronite Political Entity” and Hariri’s Future Movement and/or the “Sunni Political Entity” in general.
However, if after Syria prevails and the March the 8th Coalition rises victorious, the dissenting elements will end up as huge losers to the extent that their voice may not have much clout left at all.
In reality, even though the modern history of Lebanon has always been founded on reconciliation and the principle of “No winners and no losers”, the 1975-1989 Civil War did end up with losers, and the losers back then were the “Lebanese Forces” and their leader Samir Geagea was imprisoned for ten years. As a matter of fact, the whole “Maronite Political Entity” was disempowered for the whole ten year period during which Geagea was in jail.
Is it possible to see a much more dramatic repeat of this ? I cannot say that it would be too far-fetched.
Any possible reunification between Lebanon and Syria may not happen in one hit, as it were. It may become a work-in-progress. What is important here is for citizens of both states to realize that it is time to lift off the remnants of the big French lie that there is indeed such a thing as an independent Lebanese nation".
-"I am very puzzled and most uncomfortable with the Russian policy towards Egypt. Why are Putin and Russia so supportive of a regime which came to power by means of a bloody takeover and which has jailed and killed thousands of Egyptian Muslims ? Is this a case of Realpolitik trumping morals ?"
"Mursi hijacked the Egyptian Revolution, whatever the initial nature of that revolution was, and headed the only party (ie Muslim Brotherhood) that was organized enough to campaign for elections.
His one-year reign was wrought with decisions and decrees that were very quickly turning Egypt into a theocratic state. There were even talks about whether or not the Sphinx and the Pyramids should be levelled. This is needless to say that he allowed Islamist zealots to attack and kill Christian Coptics even inside their places of worship.
Al-Sisi has kept his cards close to his chest for a long time, but he seems to be slowly coming out now. He clearly did not agree that his ancient country should be run by fanatic zealots, and if he imprisoned hundreds of them, then he did what was needed to be done.
There are now some unconfirmed reports that Sisi has decided to send some troops to help the Saudis fight the Houthis, but even if he is, he may just sent a token army unit as he has thus far refused to partake in the Saudi offensive against Yemen despite heavy Saudi pressure and threats of funding cuts. Last but not least, during his recent visit to Moscow, he has finally agreed that he and Assad have a common enemy in ISIS and its affiliates.
Egypt, especially in Sinai, is suffering from almost daily terrorist attacks, and this according to Sisi, as like any other responsible president, is something that ought to be stopped. If Putin managed to bring Sisi and Assad together, then this in my view is a great achievement ; one that is not to be seen as a mark against Russia and Putin".
-"I am having great difficulties making sense of the position of Turkey and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. For starters, how stable do you consider these regimes to be ? Aren’t they playing with fire when they try to use Daesh against Syria ? Conversely, why do Turkey and Syria hate Assad so much ? Did he not comply with the Turkish demands to cease supporting the Kurds ? As for the Saudis, why would they care so much about Syria ? What are Turkey and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia trying to achieve right now and how sincere are their overtures towards Russia ?"
"You have raised many issues in this question and I cannot give them all enough justice in one single response, but I will try.
The stability of the status of Erdogan is highly likely going to be thrown off balance in the upcoming November parliamentary elections. He has already lost the first round back in June 15, and because neither of the opposition parties was prepared to work with him, his AKP was not able to form government, and hence the need for fresh elections.
After several attacks on Turkish outposts, a declining economy, and Turkish Army attacks on Kurds in both northern Syria and Iraq, he is likely to lose more seats which will turn him into a lame duck president.
The Saudis are not in a much better shape. With the oil price being where it is and a very costly war in Yemen, the Saudis are in deep trouble and there are rumours of dissent within the ranks of the royals themselves.
Certainly, both the Turks and the Saudis have played with fire in using ISIS, and as ISIS declared mutiny, the monster they fed is turning back to bite them.
Erdogan sees in Assad a secular patriot who stands in his way of attempting to reclaim the Ottoman Islamic Empire with him (ie Erdogan) as its head. He may not be planning a military takeover of the Levant, but he certainly wants to be the Muslim Father image and the unrivaled leader in the Muslim World. The Saudis feel the same about Bashar, and more so that they see he turned Syria into an Iranian (ie Shiite) satellite.
But here’s one dividing aspect of the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail”. Each on his own ; that is the Turks and Saudis each want to be the unrivaled leader of the Muslim World. United they were when the “War On Syria” took off more than four years ago, but today, they are standing at opposite dipoles each trying to make as many gains as possible before it is all over. But even if they ended up winning the “War On Syria”, their rivalries were going to surface at some stage.
Moreover, Assad did not and would not appease Erdogan by ceasing to support Syrian Kurds who are defending the Syrian homeland.
If indeed Turkey and Saudi Arabia are sincere in their overtures towards Russia now, it would only be out of desperation and the knowledge that America gives promises that it does not honour".
-"What about Iran ? Iif Daesh becomes enough of a threat to the Syrian government, do you see the Iranian overly intervening in Syria ? What about Bahrein and, especially, Yemen. Do you think that the Iranians have the means, the rationale and the resolve to openly intervene in these countries ? Finally, do you believe that a full scale war between the Islamic Republic and the Saudi Wahabi monarchy is possible ? Likely ?"
"As far as Syria and Iran are concerned, the two countries have a mutual defence treaty which can be put into action at any time. With the Iran nuclear deal done and dealt with, Iran would be more than able to do this now as it is no longer seen as a rogue state.
Having said that, Iran has been supporting Syria directly and indirectly via Hezbollah as well as on-the-ground military advisors.
Bahrain and Yemen are a totally different story as Iran does not have mutual defence treaties with either.
As far as Saudi Arabia itself is concerned, if push comes to shove and there is no other alternative left, I cannot see that Iran will run away from a fight. Yes, they do have the means, the rational and the resolve.
My guess however is that Iran will sit back and watch the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia implode. With every month, every week and every day, the Saudis are increasingly coming under many types of pressures and their collapse may be closer than anyone thinks. If things remain unchanged for a while, then short of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia making a direct attack on Iranian soil, I cannot see any direct combat between the two powers. Iran knows well that time is on its side and the post-nuclear deal Iran is more powerful than ever".
-"Most commentators are suggesting that there can be no military victory in the war in Syria and that some kind of political agreement between Assad and the so-called “moderate” (non-Daesh) opposition must be made. But how relevant is this moderate opposition nowadays ? Is this moderate opposition only a fig leaf to save Uncle Sam’s face in this bloody debacle and is there anybody with some credibility out there Assad could negotiate with ?"
"Assad has always said that he will debate any genuine reform agenda with any party that is not involved in killing and destruction. This proviso singles out all militants without any exception. Assad’s acceptance to this is not any different from expressing preparedness to call for an early election ; an election that he knows he is going to win with flying colours. Will this indeed be America’s face saver and consolation prize ? Time will tell".
-"The examples of Syria and Yemen see to indicate that most of the Arab world is hopelessly submitted to the Saudis, and their US and Israeli patrons. Is there really no hope of an anti-imperial resistance outside the so-called “Shia crescent” ? Is it possible that a truly progressive Sunni resistance to Empire could emerge which would be much more aligned with the values and ideas of a Sayyid Qutb then of the kind of reactionary Wahabism the Saudis have been trying to export ?"
"One of Nasser’s biggest mistakes was the execution of Sayyid Qutb because he martyred him and turned him into a hero.
Qutb was a mildly spoken scholar and a highly principled man who faced death very courageously, but underneath this personal façade of his, he was a fundamentalist and one of the founders of what directly and indirectly led to the creation of ISIS et. al. and let us not make a mistake about this.
Put the violence of Daesh (ISIS) and Wahhabis aside for a while and just consider their theological doctrine in detail and you will find that it is identical to that of Qutb.
But the force standing against that fundamentalist form of Islam is not the so-called “Shia Crescent”. This term is a furphy that has been invented and coined by Sunni fundamentalists in order to portray themselves to be in the position of the defensive in a sectarian war they did not chose to have. It is exactly the opposite that is true.
The term “Shia Crescent” is not any different than the term “Russian intervention in Ukraine”. It is a vexatious, malicious, unfounded termed designed to spark sectarianism.
Furthermore, the force that has been at the forefront of fighting Daesh more than any other is the Syrian Army in which Sunnis account for 70 %. This is not to discount the fact that Daesh has been actively involved in killing Sunni citizens, Sunni clerics and destroying Sunni Mosques. The term “Takfiri” literally means classifying anyone who does not fully agree with one’s doctrine as a heretic and hence his blood becomes forfeit.
Daesh is therefore not essentially an army of Sunnis intended to protect Sunnis. It is an army of Takfiris trying to convert the whole world, including Sunnis to their doctrine under the pain of death.
If the Muslim World is serious about providing a philosophical anti-thesis that is going to effectively stop and eradicate Sunni fundamentalism, then it cannot be based on a Shiite doctrine otherwise it would defeat its purpose.
The only way to combat ISIS and its doctrine is by reforming Islam on a spiritual level, and forming a secular front to fight it on a military level".
-"What role do you see for Russia in the Middle-East and Arab world ? What can and should Russia do to try to preserve the Syrian government and prevent a US/EU/NATO/Israeli attack on Syria and Iran ?"
"Syria and Russia need one another in the fight against ISIS as partners. The threat of ISIS is of global reach, and Russia, just like any other state, is not immune to this threat.
Furthermore, both Russia and Syria have a vested interest in a multipolar world that sees the end of American hegemony.
Russia has helped Syria to a great extent and at many levels and capacities. I am not a military expert, but from what I gather, the extra help Syria needs is in the fields of satellite surveillance data, smart bombs and advanced bombers.
Furthermore, whilst it is obvious that Syria has not yet used all of its power, and whilst its arsenal of rockets has not yet been used, little is known about its air defence capabilities. Personally, among many interested parties that I discuss this subject with, there is a consensus that Assad is keeping his defence capabilities close to his chest despite a number of recent Israeli air raids in the last few years. Israel is luring him to show what he has got up his sleeve, but he wants to keep the element of surprise for the big battle, if and when it happens.
To that effect, I would like to think and believe that the Syrian Army has an effective air defence capability that it can effectively use in the event of an all-out escalation with Israel.
Whilst some pundits argue that Syria does not have such advanced ground-to-air missiles and that Russia has let Syria down in this regard, I only need to look back at the surprise element that the Syrian and Egyptian armies presented to the Israeli Airforce when they unleashed their Soviet-built SAM-6 missiles back in the October Yum Kippur war of 1973. If the Soviets were prepared then to supply SAM-6 batteries to Syria and Egypt in 1973 after both countries suffered a humiliating defeat in the 1967 war, I don’t see why Putin’s Russia would not do the same for Syria in 2015 after Syria has gallantly stood tall after more than four years of an 83-nation vicious assault.
As far as directly defending Syria and Iran, Russia does not operate under the American gung-ho modus operandi. Just like Iran will sit back and watch the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia implode. Russia is not asked to give more than what is required in helping modernize and equip the Syrian Army. And guess what ? Syria has enough men to fight for her integrity, and honourable Syrians will die standing before they ask anyone to come and fight their fight.
The other role that Russia can playing and has been playing is one that is diplomatic. Even though the recent Russian inroads towards initiating talks between Saudi Arabia and Syria have not gone further than a one-off meeting, Russian diplomacy is on the rise. Last but not least, Russia has played a big role in the UNSC and thwarted several Western attempts to impose different forms of sanctions on Syria.
If anything, Russia is not escalating its support to Syria at all of the above levels.
As a Lebanese/Syrian, I have one word to say to Russia and her leader ; Spasiba".
-"Last question : what do you think will happen to the Zionist entity “Israel” ? Do you think that they will succeed in creating their ethnically pure state, the last openly and officially racist state on the planet, or do you believe that Ayatollah Khomenei was correct when he predicted that “this occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time” ?"
"This is a difficult question to answer simply because what I would personally like to happen is one thing and that what I believe will happen is something else.
As I said earlier, I am an incurable pacifist and I will not make any apologies about it. To this effect, I do not believe that children should pay for the crimes of the parents. Israelis born in the land of Palestine to Zionist migrants are not culpable for the displacement of Palestinians any more than today’s Americans are accountable for the massacres of indigenous American tribes.
However, if second generation onwards Israelis continue to refuse Palestinians the “right of return”, other civil rights and land restitution, then they will need to be forced to comply militarily perhaps, as this would most likely would be the only means. But for certain anti-Israeli leaders and ideologues to talk about “cleansing” and “throwing Jews out in the sea” does not make them morally any better than the Haganah gangs who did the same to the Palestinians in the 1940’s.
That said, there is little doubt in my mind that time is not on Israel’s side and there are many reasons to base this statement on. When the tides turn the other way, and this is only a question of time, given Israel’s history of violence and inhumane treatment of Palestinians, the “revenge” is likely to be immense.
Ideally, the best resolution for any state is for an all-inclusive state, one state, in which all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law.
Jews have always been part-and-parcel of the Levant’s history and they should remain as such. Any attempt to keep them out of the equation is equally wrong as is any Zionist attempt to keep Palestinians (both Muslims and Christians) out of the same yet opposite equation.
With Israeli obstinacy and the allegedly God-given superiority that underpins Zionism, it is highly unlikely that we will see a one-state solution.
As a matter of fact, it is possible that one day the Israelis may accept the one-state solution when it is too late for them to dictate any terms. But they haven’t even yet accepted the two-state solution ! In any event, a two-state solution is an admission of failure and acceptance that people of different religions cannot live on the same land, when in fact Jews, Christians and Muslims have lived together in peace for many centuries. It was only the introduction of Zionism that created the conflict.
Israel has got to realize that the more it inflicts pain and suffering on Palestinians, the more powerful the retaliation will one day be. But Israel seems to always want to thrive on the false principle that is based on the assumption that if a certain amount of force will not achieve the required objective, then more force will.
Israel is digging itself in, and the more it does, the more enemies it is creating.
If Islamists ever take control of the Levant, God forbid, they will eventually turn against Israel and vow to kill every Jewish man woman and child. To be realistic here again, if Islam is not reformed, and if its violent aspect that is based on misinterpreting its message is not properly and adequately dealt with, then it will be a matter of time before Islamists do achieve this control.
If on the other hand secularism and rationality win and Syria rises victorious and turns into a shining beacon of civility and progress for the entire region, then it will not be able to co-exist with Israel in its present form. Israel will either have to be integrated and thereby losing its Jewish majority (which it will never accept), or it will have to face massive wars and very dire consequences when it is no longer in a militarily superior position".
Interview by The Saker