Two things to remember: First, Assad has nowhere to go. He learned from Gaddaffi and Saddam that a critical part of the West's "clean up" strategy is total elimination of the dicator and his blood line. Second, Assad knows that if he loses the Sunni victors will murder each and every Alawi they find. As long as Obama supplies the Sunni with weapons and bases in Turkey, they will not lose no matter how many civilians Assad kills. On the other hand, Assad and the Alawi have no choice but to fight to the end. Once again, thanks to Obama's mismanagement and Jew hatred, many innocents will die.

Jewish civilians are targets of those same Arabs.

Perhaps the best solution for all parties, and especially for the Alawiteы is the division of Syria into autonomous provinces along the lines of Iraqi Kurdistan In this case, the Alawites have a region that coincides with the originally created by France Alawi state. In the event of defeat of Assad , the Alawites, Christians and supporters of Assad could escape there. This area includes all of the ports and all the coast of Syria, and has a high potential for development. Move here his loyal army , and all stocks of weapons, and with the support of Russia, which would retain its naval bases, Assad or his Alawite successor (if Assad has to go) can successfully resist the central government. To expand the boundaries of this area, and create Alawite majority , Assad is trying to expel from it as much as possible Sunnis. For the transfer, not to appease the rebels carried out attacks and other forms of intimidation of the Sunni population in northern cities. It's cruel but but not meaningless.

It's been this way all through Arab history. It is just modern weapons that have increased the casualties making it appear that Arab wars are more brutal. The Almohad genocide of 200,000 Jews in 12th century N. Africa and Spain certainly jumps to mind. There is nothing new in either the Gaza or Syrian conflicts. Assad's father was much more brutal when he put down a Muslim Brotherhood insurrection . Just look at recent history, the Lebanon or Algerian civil wars. Sudan in Darfur and South Sudan, Iran ~ Iraq war, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Iraq war on Kurds, recent Iraqi sectarian strife, all the various Yemeni wars.......

One step that should certainly be pursued by the West is to put greater spotlight on Russia's complicity in the crimes being committed... Not only does Moscow fully support the Assad butchers diplomatically, but they routinely deliver the regime weapons replinishments via port of Tartous. The Russians are complicit in the butchery & war crimes... Where is the outcry in the Arab & Muslim world?

Looks like you needed some kind of front to add in your final line slandering President Obama. I'm sure whatever the issue, "israeli israeli" adds that final slander to each note. Pathetic.

can one could agree to the above and still ask: what provocation? the point of the article is:, if the UN wasn't there the rebels wouldn't provoke, meaning they wouldn't fight. true! but not because they had no reason to provoke but because they would all be dead and forgotten. the whole provocation thesis is indeed a rather circumspect way to avoid conclusion like the one in the comment above. it might theoretically be wrong, then the article is wrong but if they are not, I wonder what the complication about provocation is for?