Opinion  Ron Ben-Yishai
Syrian deal: World interest map
Ron Ben-Yishai
Published: 10.09.13, 19:59
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
22 Talkbacks for this article
1. The article is way too optimistic
Alan ,   Canada   (09.10.13)
Every one in the West & in Damascus & Teheran is sighing in relief except the 2 000 0000 Syrian refugees & the 4 000 000 displaced people who will still have to deal with Assad & his henchmen, who without toxic gas are able to kill at the rate of 50 000 civilians per year. What is the long term value of a potential deal with monstruous leaders in Syria & their equally inhumane supporters? What does it change in their despotic ways which recognize only violence as a means to survive & achieve their goals? Does it prevent more internal crimes against humanity & does it prevent exporting terrorism? The West blinked & the happy criminals might throw in a bone to appease their meek & indifferent critics.
2. Wrong analysis as far as Israel is concerned
Al   (09.10.13)
Israel will be made to pay the price for you so called American deterrence. Israel will be forced to sign a bogus peace deal with the Pals in order to satisfy the desires of an Obama. He will say to Netanyahu (the other empty suit). "You see I saved Israel from a Syrian attack, now bend over to the Pals". Israel will end up being the loser big time, thanks to a dim wit of a PM. Netanyahu the forever wannabee will get the noble prize only Israel will end up sliced and diced to a sliver of nothing.
3. Everyone Wins? Not So Fast
EGGM ,   Petah Tikva, Israel   (09.10.13)
This article might be mostly accurate, but it only lists those who win. What about those who lose? There is one very clear loser in this Russian deal: the rebels. If the deal goes through as planned, they are done for. Assad gets both the strength and the legitimacy to finish them off. This is also bad for whoever supported the rebels, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but also other Sunni countries.
4. # 1-3 less hypocrisy, please
italian ,   italy   (09.10.13)
Why would we complain the crackdown on rotten jihaidistes, whose purpose is the slaughter of christians, druse and alawite communities? I don't want an islamic emirate in Syria and Lebanon.
5. it is not over yet my friends.
Matt   (09.10.13)
The argument at the UNSC will be over a chapter 7 clause. Now an UNSCOM will report to the SG who will report to the UNSC in relation to non compliance in which sanctions will be required, like an arms embargo, fiscal sanctions on the regime etc. This process ends in a chapter 7. Either without a chapter 7 non compliance weak or no sanctions from the UNSC due to Russian veto will put airstrikes back on the table. Only full compliance can avert military action and as with the IAEA intelligence will be provided to the UNSCOM. It is merely a process that leads to military action if the party involved is deceptive and non compliant. It does even without a chapter 7 establish a legal frame work for intervention. Which my Russia have blocked everything at the UNSC previously.
6. to#3 EGGM
Marcelo ,   Berlin / TLV   (09.10.13)
are you serious? who cares about syrian rebels? are you really so blind? who would you prefer to help, some lunatic who uses gas to kill its own population and gives weapons to hizbullah or the ones who would use any weapon to kill christians and jews alike, killing and eating the heart off from poeple? both sides are muslim terrorists, both, sunnis and shiis, no exception there...the best Israel can do is watch them kill each other until no one survives...
7. now the fight continues
real vision ,   usa   (09.10.13)
Assad and his scumbags can now fight with the rebels and their assorted terrorist scumbags...hopefully to the last man standing
8. The idea isn't practical and can't work!
michael redbourn ,   Lisbon Portugal   (09.10.13)
The article stays far away from the question of how neutralizing the chemical weapons would or could be carried out. They are spread out all over a country that is involved in a civil war.
9. Oblabla got too much credit in the article
A ,   Belgium   (09.10.13)
It was czar Putin, Syria's puppetmaster, who pulled the right strings. Oblabla could only draw "red lines", and than when his red lines were crossed, could not come up with a solution to back up his words. He mumbled and stumbled and didn't know how to respond. In fact, he left the decision of attacking Syria to Congress, which will probably overwhelmingly vote no. Meanwhile, Kerry has "irrefutable evidence" that it was Assad who used the weapons and not the rebels. Sort of reminds me of the "irrefutable evidence" another U.S. defense minister tried bluffing the world into believing. Israel, being the number one target of Syria and Hizbollah, may be able to sleep a little better but still with one eye open.
10. Obama MESSED IT UP ! He is a complete
Chris Rettenmoser ,   Bayerisch Gmain Germ   (09.11.13)
failure !
11. #4 is correct.
Jake   (09.11.13)
It is not a battle between good and evil. It is a battle between evil and more evil. And given the conditions of quiet on the Golan for the last 40 years with the "Devil we know", why would we want to exchange that for al-Qaeda/Moslem Brotherhood regime in Damascus?
12. if you kill enough people you get to stay in power!
jackJew   (09.11.13)
thats what Assad learned! and it seems he's right. how sad
13. and making a long story short....
les ,   canada   (09.11.13)
14. Assad the butcher - licenced to kill
Chatich   (09.11.13)
Now he can slaughter as many people as he likes with conventional weapons, a vast supply of which he shall soon have courtesy vlad the imflamer.
15. missed an option
david wolgroch ,   london uk   (09.11.13)
the other, and more likely, option is the chewing gum scenario in which negotiations are endless, promises are made and ignored, adjustments and meetings are numerous but basically Assad keeps his chemical weapons as a threat, and major world powers achieve NOTHING.
16. #4, 6, 11 Reading is Key
EGGM ,   Petah Tikva, Israel   (09.11.13)
If you read my comment, you will notice that I did not express any sentiment for or against the rebels, it was just a comment on the article that it didn't list every major side, and certainly not the one that loses the most. Regarding the issues you raised: as "inhumane" as it might sound, it is clearly in Israel's best interests that the war continues for as long as possible. Beyond that, it is probably best that Syria is split into multiple states. This won't happen if the rebels lose entirely. We don't want al-Qaeda, but we also don't want Iran to sit on our borders and constantly bother us (whether from Syria itself or from Lebanon—doesn't really matter). It's best to have neither side entirely win, and keep up the tension between.
17. The next: world demands Israel destroying N.
Mark ,   Tel Aviv   (09.11.13)
The next step the Arabs demands that Israel will destroy its nuclear weapons. And World find it's justifiable.
18. We should try this approach in society too
Shachar ,   Eilat   (09.11.13)
Instead of arresting murderers, which can be a dangerous and unpredictable procedure, we could simply let them give up their weapon and let them go free. That way everyone wins right?!
19. Putin Plays Chess; US/Israel Lose Playing Monopoly
Jersey Jew ,   New Jersey, USA   (09.11.13)
Key missed issue is Israel soon loses BIG ... Checkmate! Assad agrees 2sign CWC & surrenders chemical weapons ONLY if Israel signs/surrenders their chemical weapons. Uh Oh, loudly reveals Israel chemical weapons & aggressive policy against all WMDs except their own. Plus, Russia increases weapons 2Syria, Iran, etc. despite Israel screaming, while USA continues massive weapons, technology & diplomatic/political support 2Israel. Israel agonizing self-painted corner ...
20. West/Israel/Russia/China/India: REDRAW MAP=STRATEGIC BALANCE
Jerry ,   The Netherlands   (09.11.13)
21. rebels?
s ,   netherlands   (09.11.13)
22. Analysis only true if good deal reached
Serge ,   Antwerp, Belgium   (09.12.13)
Obama showed himself as hesitating, the US as avoiding to use force at any price. Meanwhile we have to wait and see what deal will be brokered. It is only after destruction of WMD that the deterrent effect of this deal will show.
Back to article