FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Israel, Syria and the Bloody Absurd

by BINOY KAMPMARK

In one of St. Augustine’s observations (and there were many on the subject), the absence of morality among states would simply make them aggrandized bandits legitimised by rules of plunder.  The Syrian conflict, with bloodied players both internal and external, is demonstrating this sad rule. Conventions heeding the consequences of force have been abandoned.

Foreign policy by the gun (and the bomb) is a gamble when initiated without direct provocation. Suggestion is enough.  The attacks by Israel on Syrian targets ostensibly to stop disrupt missile shipments showed again how the moral dimensions of the conflict taking place is not merely murky but nigh obliterated.  One might use an old expression Napoleon’s chief of police Joseph Fouché is said to have made on the execution of Louis Antoine, Duke of Enghien – this was worse than a crime, but a mistake.

For one thing, it has pushed the regime of Bashar al-Assad further into the eager and warming arms of Iran and Hezbollah.  While the relationship is no secret, the titillation was hardly needed.  In Assad’s words to Al-Akhbar daily on Thursday, he claimed that, “We have decided that we must advance toward them and turn into a resistance nation like Hezbollah [did in Lebanon], for the sake of Syria and future generations” (Jerusalem Post, May 10).  The new level of cooperation entailed that the regime would “give them everything.”

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was cooing with satisfaction.  “We are ready to receive any sort of physical weaponry, even if it is going to disturb the balance [in the region].”  All sides in the region are up for a good bit of unbalancing as the situation stands.

The standard response from Israeli authorities is that the attacks were designed to stop ballistic missiles from falling into the hands of Hezbollah.  This reaction was odd to begin with, given that Israel’s missile defence establishment has made it clear that, should militants ever use the Fateh-110- weapons, they would be made short work of (Real Clear Politics, May 8).  In the words of the former director of the Israel Defence Organisation, Arieh Herzog, “We are now able to cope with all the missiles that are threatening Israel right now, including the longer-range missiles in Iran and in Syria.”

At work here is a calculus that may be out of all strategic kilter to the psychology that drives it.  Outgoing Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barack has made no bones about the position that Israel will “coerce” Iran into not obtaining a nuclear option, though coercion when it comes from an Israeli weapon tends to be pretty violent.  “During the coming year and hopefully before they reach what I have called a ‘zone of immunity’ – a point at which Israeli airstrikes couldn’t meaningfully hinder Iranian nuclear work – Iran will be coerced into putting an end to it this way or another way.”  As for Syria, coercion is automatic.

This charmingly dangerous route is indicative of how credible the missile defense alternative would be.  Israeli confidence is largely baked by the Arrow-2 system, though any such system is imperfect.  The result is a dual narrative of Israeli invincibility even in the face of permanent vulnerability.  The logic of Middle East politics again moves in its perverse circle.

Then comes the other absurd dimension here – the relativism that has fast engulfed the entire debate about whether Syria should, or should not be, attacked to prevent the conflict from continuing its bloody course.  The reaction from Syria to the strikes wasn’t quite as direct as it might have been.  Mixed reports have been seeping through suggesting that a few of the Syrian opposition elements were celebrating the attacks.  Enemy of my enemy, and so forth.

Then came the reaction from the Assad government itself, keen to gain purchase for the attacks.  After all, there has been a true butchering for a Roman holiday taking place, with the attacks obscuring the regime’s own exploits.  The Turkish government, through its Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, claimed that Assad has initiated “Plan B” or ethnic cleansing for members of Assad’s Alawite sect.

At the same time, various Arab regimes have also extolled the holiness of Syrian sovereignty while undermining it.  Saudi Arabia and Qatar have gotten their mitts dirty on this score, and have backed the Syrian opposition with material even as they condemn Israel in its actions against Israel.

Each stake has undermined the premise of justified strike, and the humanitarian nonsense that will be used to shield any “official” international incursion will simply be designed to ignore one fundamental reality: state interest on either side of the conflict to see the status quo continue or Assad fall.

In one sense, the Israeli strike, with its vicious surgical brutality is the most honest of all.  Syria is up for grabs.  Sovereignty is for sale to the highest and most violent bidder, and the Syrian people, as they were from the start, will be the ones who will continue to be fodder in a grand game of absurd killings, with all its unbalancing promise.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
May 27, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Silencing America as It Prepares for War
Rob Urie
By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates
Andrew Levine
Hillary’s Gun Gambit
Paul Street
Feel the Hate
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
Basic Income Gathers Steam Across Europe
Gunnar Westberg
Close Calls: We Were Much Closer to Nuclear Annihilation Than We Ever Knew
Jeffrey St. Clair
Hand Jobs: Heidegger, Hitler and Trump
S. Brian Willson
Remembering All the Deaths From All of Our Wars
Dave Lindorff
With Clinton’s Nixonian Email Scandal Deepening, Sanders Must Demand Answers
Pete Dolack
Millions for the Boss, Cuts for You!
Peter Lee
To Hell and Back: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Karl Grossman
Long Island as a Nuclear Park
Binoy Kampmark
Sweden’s Assange Problem: The District Court Ruling
Robert Fisk
Why the US Dropped Its Demand That Assad Must Go
Martha Rosenberg – Ronnie Cummins
Bayer and Monsanto: a Marriage Made in Hell
Brian Cloughley
Pivoting to War
Stavros Mavroudeas
Blatant Hypocrisy: the Latest Late-Night Bailout of Greece
Arun Gupta
A War of All Against All
Dan Kovalik
NPR, Yemen & the Downplaying of U.S. War Crimes
Randy Blazak
Thugs, Bullies, and Donald J. Trump: The Perils of Wounded Masculinity
Murray Dobbin
Are We Witnessing the Beginning of the End of Globalization?
Daniel Falcone
Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen, an Interview with David Hilfiker
Gloria Jimenez
In Honduras, USAID Was in Bed with Berta Cáceres’ Accused Killers
Kent Paterson
The Old Braceros Fight On
Lawrence Reichard
The Seemingly Endless Indignities of Air Travel: Report from the Losing Side of Class Warfare
Peter Berllios
Bernie and Utopia
Stan Cox – Paul Cox
Indonesia’s Unnatural Mud Disaster Turns Ten
Linda Pentz Gunter
Obama in Hiroshima: Time to Say “Sorry” and “Ban the Bomb”
George Souvlis
How the West Came to Rule: an Interview with Alexander Anievas
Julian Vigo
The Government and Your i-Phone: the Latest Threat to Privacy
Stratos Ramoglou
Why the Greek Economic Crisis Won’t be Ending Anytime Soon
David Price
The 2016 Tour of California: Notes on a Big Pharma Bike Race
Dmitry Mickiewicz
Barbarous Deforestation in Western Ukraine
Rev. William Alberts
The United Methodist Church Up to Its Old Trick: Kicking the Can of Real Inclusion Down the Road
Patrick Bond
Imperialism’s Junior Partners
Mark Hand
The Trouble with Fracking Fiction
Priti Gulati Cox
Broken Green: Two Years of Modi
Marc Levy
Sitrep: Hometown Unwelcomes Vietnam Vets
Lorenzo Raymond
Why Nonviolent Civil Resistance Doesn’t Work (Unless You Have Lots of Bombs)
Ed Kemmick
New Book Full of Amazing Montana Women
Michael Dickinson
Bye Bye Legal High in Backwards Britain
Missy Comley Beattie
Wanted: Daddy or Mommy in Chief
Ed Meek
The Republic of Fear
Charles R. Larson
Russian Women, Then and Now
David Yearsley
Elgar’s Hegemony: the Pomp of Empire
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail