In the last post, I suggested a harsh reality, that many people in the West (and elsewhere) are happy to see two sets of Muslims with bad track records fighting it out to the death in Syria.
Just to reiterate, it’s not my personal view, but a reflection on how much of the world may feel, but can’t say, at least as bluntly as that. Just look at the clear majority against intervention in Syria by the US, the UK, Germany etc.
Israeli officials have consistently made the case that enforcing Mr. Obama’s narrow “red line” on Syria is essential to halting the nuclear ambitions of Israel’s archenemy, Iran. More quietly, Israelis have increasingly argued that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome.
For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.
“This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,” said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. “Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.”
Of course, once you mention Israel, the usual mob of left antisemites starts howling, but the Two Scorpions theory holds good.
There’s nothing stopping Obama hosting a peace conference on neutral ground. He doesn’t seem interested in the humanitarian/peace stuff. Instead of getting his inspiration from Laurel and Hardy, perhaps he could read the Pope‘s Twitter feed.
In the absence of that though, let them fight it out.