In Syria, Protesters Are Pawns
What happens when a massively unpopular Arab leader does something that jihadi leaders support? That was precisely the question that popular Syrian jihadi ideologue Abdul Muhim Mustafa Halima, aka Abu Basir al-Tartusi, recently pondered in an online Q and A session.
“Why does the Syrian regime permit some of the demonstrators to cross the borders of the Golan with the Israeli state,” al-Tartusi asked in response to the opening of Syria’s border to protesters on May 15th. “Why now and with this timing, in which the Syrian people are going out chanting for the fall of the tyrant and his system?”
The question is of particular relevance in light of the response planned by anti-Israel activists on Israel’s borders, scheduled for May 20.
The questions also reflect a reality little discussed in Western media. Syria, easily considered to be one of the Middle East’s most oppressive regimes, has the ability to let off steam with anti-Israel demonstrations. Allowing Syrian infiltrations across the Israeli border is practically a godsend for jihadists around the world.
So the question is really why now? Why would the Baathist regime permit the first ever cross-border infiltrations by Syrian civilians? It’s a move that hasn’t been allowed during the nearly 40 years of al-Assad rule in Syria.
Interestingly, al-Bartusi’s answers hit the nail on the head. For one, al-Assad was telling the Arab world that he supports the “resistance” against the Jews. Simultaneously, he was also letting the West know that he is needed to control the border — that without him, there would be mayhem and possibly another war. In addition, the act was a convenient distraction in the midst of his brutal crackdown on civilian protests.
On top of all these reasons, al-Assad was doing some serious signaling to Syrian society. “How are they demonstrating against the regime that permits them to demonstrate against the Zionist Jews in the Golan,” al-Bartusi cleverly asks, “while he supports the front of the resistance and opposition?”
What’s missing from al-Bartusi’s analysis isn’t vitriolic anti-Semitism; there certainly is enough of that. Rather, al-Bartusi seems to miss that al-Assad had little choice in the matter. Never before has his family’s rule faced such a popular and cross-cultural threat to its existence, with so many segments of Syrian society calling for an end to oppression. Al-Assad didn’t permit the marches; he just chose to sidestep a wave of dissent that would further rock his shaky grasp on power.
Although al-Assad may have physical control over many parts of Syria, his regime has completely lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the Syrian people. Controlling anti-Israel protests may give him the appearance of being the matador while Syrian society is the bull — but events may steer him now more than he controls them.
On the following page, I provide my full translation of the jihadi question and answer session.
“Simultaneously, he was also letting the West know that he is needed to control the border — that without him, there would be mayhem and possibly another war.”
In a strange way, that’s probably true. If a radical Isalmist takes over in Syria, or possibly an even worse nationalist general, you may see Syria try to attack Israel. At the very least, Syria would give even more support to Hezbollah and would possibly even try to take over all of Lebanon. Either way, it wouldn’t end up well for Israel. But I do think Assad is too far gone now to have any support or credibility from the people of Syria. People have long memories in that part of the world and they hold grudges literally for generations, so you can’t expect to kill about 1,000 Syrian protesters and not have anybody get angry about it. The Army is the key. As with any arab dictator, if he can control the army he will stay in power. If he can’t, he will be thrown out of power. The next few weeks should tell what’s going to happen in that pathetic country.
Yes, he is showing us all what we already know….
There can ge no good outcome to anything in the Middle East.
Our choices are dictators that oppress their people and forment an insane level of unjustified hatred for the west, or:
Allow that insane level of hatred to BECOME the next government of that nation.
Arabs, Muslims, Islamists, Mohamadans….
There is no good that will occur with them on this planet.
Assad has just shown us that again.
Which is why Israel needs to:
1) Forcibly deport all arabs/muslims/fake-a-stinians from these so called “occupied” lands.
2) Turn said lands into into MINEFIELDS. Secure whatever buffer zone is militarilly needed
3) Launch nukes against all M/E capitals from Ryad to Kabul, Bagdad to Beruit, Damaskis to Cairo to Tripoli (without concern for any so-called “Western allied troops” that may be present) as soon as the FIRST rock is throw across the barbed wire.
Those rabid dogs have been bragging about how they “love death like you love life” for ceturies.
Give them the gift they desire.
P.S.
I do have nieces and nephews currently deployed in some of those places.
Thier loss would sting, but immediate and massive nukes on Allahs Pagan hell-holes would be worth it.
I would say the same thing if I were deployed there..
If fact I did.
In Beriut, 1983
. . . . Looks real solid. The only thing which I would add—and to Mr. “Libertyship46″, in his post before yours—”There can be no good outcome to anything in the Middle East.”, and: “Either way, it wouldn’t end up well for Israel.”, I don’t whether you’d accept the thought from an obscure passage from the Book of Romans in the Christian Bible:
“And we know that, to those who love GOD, to them who are the called according to his purpose, all things work together for good.”,
or if not, why then, maybe you’ll think that, Bill Gates was a pretty smart guy when in the “Tip of the day” notes for his Win 3.11 load, he wrote:
“If you always do your best, whatever happens will be for the best.”,
yeah, I don’t see how Israel can lose.
As is so for courtship, the outcome is determined by implementation of, and adherence to the rules of engagement as they are to be applied for and against the various actors whose efforts tend to bear upon development of the engagement—then, trusting all to higher powers to be in observant activity in advancement of constructs of their own designs.
The plain reason for which G0D made conflict—or, war—was so that, in the many things and ways possible, HIS forces also, can participate for elimination of evil. This has been noted as a fact by writers from ancient time, forward.
That I have read of, record of battlefield scenes—as remains in the appurtenant academic literature—in which angelic actors were seen, guiding or, fending off projectiles and so forth—were made concerning the wars of the Huns, in WWI, in WWII, and no doubt others beyond my reading, were made.
As among members of groups, IQ is not additive, against a disorganized rabble—which Middle Easterners are most becoming of—and empowered and impelled by the very Author of Confusion, I would take 10-1 bets—I don’t see any rationale by which Israel could lose.
So far as that goes, . . . I think that, the USA could lose, . . . by standing by and simply whistling, . . . as has been suggested we are to do. And then in that way, the reason as to why Israel gave back some land from previous contests was that, other nations had helped; so, . . . you know, no doubt, if they think that, they can swing it alone, certainly and absolutely, they would prefer to not end up with a cowardly Eisenhower type grousing around about how to cut and give more of victory’s pie back to the most undeserving, . . . sure, . . .