As if the Syrian uprising is not living enough surrealism at these times. To muddle the picture even more, Israel said that it’s getting ready to receive Syrian refugees, or to be more precisely – only Alawites. The remarks were made by Israel’s army chief of staff Lieutenant General Benny Gantz to the Knesset committee on foreign affairs and defence:
On the day the Assad regime falls, it is expected to harm the Alawite clan. We are preparing to receive Alawite refugees on the Golan Heights
Similar remarks are usually ridiculed by all relevant parties as Israel has no tr relation with any of the Syrian players. To prove that, the Israeli deceitful remarks had no political implications, especially with Israel’s bloody history in the sectarian civil war of Lebanon – which explains such remarks. Israel likes to expose ethnic minorities’ differences and incite on sectarianism when they can. If the Middle East is full of ethnic nations, then a nation for the Jews would be more acceptable and harmonized with its surrounding. Plus wouldn’t such statements initiate or indeed increase fear within Alawites if they exist, instead of comforting them? of course they would.
Israel’s purpose on this occasion is divisive as always, and NOT to ‘tweak Assad’ as David Kenner has suggested in the Foreign Policy magazine in some modest analysis. The Associate Editor even took the publicised Israeli intention seriously to analyse that such refuge is not logistically possible. He suggested South Lebanon instead – may be after taking the first right turn just before the Golan junction – via the disputed Ghajar!
Just for the argument sake, here are some questions: how are Alawites going to travel en mass within Syria in a sectarian war, and why they don’t seek refuge in closer north Lebanon where Alawites exist, or indeed other Lebanese areas (as if Shias didn’t take refuge in Druze, Sunni and Christian areas in 2006)? HOW DO YOU DIFFERENTIATE ALAWITES FROM NON-ALAWITES while crossing the borders?
If Israel is really intending to give refuge to some Syrians in Golan Heights, then it will be replicating the South Lebanon Army and Antoine Lahed experiences, and playing on internal divisions to keep them the sand bags in any fight or negotiations – or as buffer zone as they called it in Lebanon. So the remarks are not ‘anti-Assad’ remarks, but anti-Syria.
Whatever the reason is, this statement has nothing to do with giving ‘refuge’ and protection; if Israel’s conscience has at last waken up, and they want us to believe that they do care about Syrians (or some of them), and if they want to prove these ‘humanitarian credentials’, then they can start by returning the Palestinian refugees outside Palestine, opening their inside ghettos and stop the ethnic cleansing of the Arab bedouins.