For once – in a very long time – the Council on Foreign
Relations has published an article on its website that is a real article
dedicated to honestly probe into the issues it is discussing.
Unlike previous propaganda pieces disguised as articles,
this one does not aim to promote Israel or any other Jewish cause. It came
under the title: “The Need for Diplomacy and De-escalation,” written by Philip
H. Gordon and published on February 5, 2016.
In brief, Gordon says that the status quo with regard to the
Syrian civil war is too horrifying to continue, and must be brought to an end.
In his view, the policy that was pursued by America up to now – and continues
to be pursued – has not worked. In fact, it has contributed to making things
worse.
And so, the author proposes a different course of action;
one whose details suggest he has embraced the action that was initiated by
Russia and Iran a few months ago. It's a policy based on the premise that when
America goes around the Middle East and changes regimes as commanded by the
Jews, it pursues a course of action that's as bankrupt as the Jewish ideology
that conceived it.
Gordon says that the war in Syria poses a threat to the
region; to Europe and ultimately to America. The way to deal with it is not to
add more of what sustains it but to de-escalate it. Given the current
circumstances, it will not be easy to do so, he warns, but de-escalation must
be done, he goes on to say. That's because the two alternatives of doing nothing
or escalating the war by supporting one faction or another in the conflict will
only exacerbate it, prolong it, and add to the misery of the people who are
already suffering horribly.
Before laying out his plan to de-escalate the conflict and
bring the war to an end, Gordon takes a moment to explain what must not happen.
He wants America to remember that Syria's President Bashar “Assad is backed by
a sizable military force and a considerable portion of his population.” Thus,
it would be absurd to threaten him militarily or to try and force his regime to
come to the table and “essentially negotiate its own demise.” That has not
worked before, says Gordon, and will not work now.
Having stated those ideas as clearly as he can, the author
puts down the plan in five points:
(1) Institutionalize a diplomatic process with all parties
involved. (2) Initiate a bilateral U.S. back-channel process with Russia. (3)
Pursue a cease-fire between the regime and the opposition. (4) Defer the
question of Assad. (5) Continue to fight the Islamic State.
He predicts that the plan will be criticized because it is
too difficult to implement. That's because the outside actors are divided, he
explains. In addition, there is not a single voice that speaks for all
opposition groups. And there is the fact that many in the region want to keep
up the fight till Assad is ousted.
But he says that putting up with those difficulties and
working to solve them is better than causing a military escalation by providing
the opposition with evermore sophisticated weapons. He reminds the readers that
this may have to be done without adequately vetting the people who will receive
the weapons.
In addition, the combatants may also have to be supported
with direct U.S. strikes if and when they get bogged down … which they will
because no war has ever gone smoothly all the way to victory. Thus, Philip
Gordon determines that to “reduce the violence on almost any terms would be
better than that.”
We must now ask the questions: Who might be the critics that
will oppose a peaceful resolution to the Syrian civil war, preferring instead
to continue the horror that has been unfolding for a long time already? The
answer is the Jews who have always nudged America to go decapitate the Arab and
Muslim governments in the region so as to give Israel the chance to become the
hegemon of the Middle East.