The Genesis of the Syrian Conflict after the Arrival of Israel as a Public Player

Updated May 19, 2013

By Abir A Chaaban
 
The Syrian conflict started with demonstrations demanding a change from the one party regime to a pluralist system of government, the end of the emergency rule, and the release of political prisoners. The Syrian government met the demands, a new Constitution was promulgated. The Constitution omitted the old  Constitution's reference to the Ba’ath party as the "leader of the nation and society". It was approved in a referendum on 26 February, 2012. The new Syrian Constitution declares the new system of government in Syria as a republican system. Sovereignty is an attribute of the people, and no individual or group may claim sovereignty (article 2.). The Constitution established a pluralist system of parliamentary democracy. It prohibits the formation of political parties based on religion, sect, and national origin (article 8.4). It declares Islam as the State law and a source of legislation into the laws of the state (article 3).

Regardless, militancy emerged instead of negotiations. The Syrian Revolutionary Front, an organization composed of sub-groups of Wahhabi and radical –Salaf, are the major player in the conflict. They are also the sectarian player. The most spectacular party of the Syrian Revolutionary Front is Al-Nusra , a militant group considered as a terrorist organization by the United States. The Constitution of the Syrian Revolutionary Front aims at enforcing several demands that are in conflict with the declared secular republican system of government constituted in February 2012. The first demand of the Revolutionary Front aims at the constitution of a democracy ruled by the religious ideology of the Wahhabi-Salaf, claiming representation of the Sunni majority. This is in opposition to the political majority determined by the political party disregarding religion and voted in the 2012 referendum. The second demand aims at prohibiting the Ba’ath party from participating in government, in disagreement with the new constitution allowing the Ba’ath party to participate with other political parties in a pluralist parliament. The third demand aims at constituting an Islamic State founded of Shari’a.  Wahhabi and radical Salafism is less than onepercent of the Syrian Sunnis, making the militancy and its demands a minority aiming to usurp power violently. 

The Revolutionary Front demands are associated with Western, Saudi, Israeli and Qatari tactical dissemination war propaganda that magnifies the battle in sectarian terms. In fact, the sectarian discourse of mobilization on the ground does not govern the ideologies of both factions in the conflict. The sectarian discourse is the discourse of the Wahhabi and radical Salaf militancy. This is the discourse that is propagated by Western media as the discourse of the Sunni majority. In fact, the media discourse of the "sectarian conflict" underplays that the Syrian executive leadership is composed of an Alawite Shī’a President, a Sunni Prime Minister, two deputy Prime Ministers one is a Sunni Muslim and one is a Greek Orthodox Christian, and a Sunni Minister of Defense. The military operations of the Syrian Army are commanded by a Sunni.The government's representation does not reflect that the government is dominated by an Alawite Shī’a minority.

At the local level, in Syria and Lebanon, the war is reported in regional terms, with Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel being major players supporting and arming the militancy.Qatar is the major financier of the supply of militants, weapons and ammunition . The war aims of the militancy, according to local analysis, is the destruction of the  military power of Syria, and not the reformation of government. This is clearly stated by the Western instituted National Coalition of Opposition and Revolutionary Forces, a blanket opposition in exile that rejects negotiation with the government, opting instead for a militarized "uprising."

Last week, after the Syrian army's significant military gains in Al-Qussayr, Israel attacked Syrian military posts inside Syria under the pretext that the attacks were aimed at "preventing the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah". Israel's declared target of the attack was a missile shipment heading to Hezbollah. Israel claimed that the missile shipment would have changed the balance of powers on the ground. The Syrian government alleges that Israel and Arab and Western states are the major providers for military and logistical support for the militants. In an interview with President Bashar Al-Assad on Argentinean newspaper Clarín and reported on the Guardian, on May 18, 2013, Assad stated that militants shelled the Syrian radar facility that would have detected the Israeli warplanes a day prior to the attack.

The situation as it stands today, with the popular support for Assad, his advancement on the ground against militant organizations, and his containment of  the conflict to the borders of Turkey and North Lebanon , does not serve Israel's interest. Israel will not achieve its objective of war by instigating a sectarian conflict that may weaken the government, even with its powerful control of the media and war propaganda. This is so, since the majority of the Sunnis support the secular government of Assad. Israel's operations inside Syria then aimed at achieving  what the radical militancy in Syria is failing to achieve, primarily, weaken Syria's military. Thus, Israel illegally attacked a sovereign state without a declaration of war. Nevertheless, Israel is the weaker player in this conflict. Israel, while possessing advanced weapons, it does not have the manpower to fight a war with Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

Following the Israeli attacks, the Golan is declared as a war front by the Syrian government and Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah. Israel, as usual, has put itself in an unfavorable situation regionally, and domestically within Syria.The Israeli attack changed the facts on the ground, at least, in two directions. First it has strengthened the Sunni support for the Syrian government, including this of the peaceful opposition of the National Coordination Committee, and weakened main stream Sunni support of the Wahhabi-Salaf insurgency. The National Coordination Committee, started vocally advocating the peaceful solution in the face of the Israeli threat. Second, the Israeli attacks created doubt in the public eyes about the actual motives of the militancy inside Syria, and the rationale of Western support of the militants, bringing credibility to Assad's discourse claiming that this war is a regional war aiming to destroy Syria.