Joshua Landis, over at Syria Comment, has a new post entitled “Will Syria Benefit From Syria’s Invasion of Gaza”. In it, he argues that “the ‘moderates’ are moderate because they have no conflict with Israel. The radicals are radical because they do… Syria is compelled to fan the flames of hatred and violence because it calculates — and perhaps correctly — that only militant passions can win back their land and restore lost dignity.”
Bashar al-Assad suspended all talks with Israel following the invasion of Gaza. Syria is now demanding that a high-level international conference be convened under Obama’s stewardship to find a comprehensive solution to the problem. What if the U.S. responds favorably? Bashar has insisted that Hamas be taken seriously as a major regional actor along with Hizbullah, and has refused to cut ties with these allies. Does this mean that Hamas, Hizbullah, and the Iranians would attend a peace conference organized by the Obama adminstration?
If all Syria (and its allies) want is a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T, why not call the bluff (if that’s what Israel and its allies think it is)? What do they have to lose?
Naive questions await cynical answers…
Qifa Nabki 
What is the problem? If Obama wants to talk to Hizballah, Hamas, Al-Qaida or my mother in law, he can go right ahead. Who is going to stop him? Certainly not Israel. There is no need for any high level anything,
I remember well the catheter inducing meetings secretaries of state used to have with Hafez. Except for helping urologists in Bethesda they accomplished nothing. So by all means, let Clinton, Mitchell and whoever go to Damascus and talk to Asad, Meshal and Nasrallah. Best of luck to them.
QN, you identified the problem on SC. What will Meshal and Nasrallah answer when asked by Clinton what is their end game? What are they willing to compromise on?
Posted by AIG | January 21, 2009, 5:30 pmI think Syria would have been more credible in its resistance enterprise if it would have oppened the Golan front during the 2006 or the Gaza conflicts.
Relying on proxies to apply pressure on Israel, in my views is nothing short of showing enormous weeakness. Why would Israel take Syria seriously, when it can fight HA and Hamas and cause enormous destruction, and afterward have a seize fire?
Another question to ask is why should the Lebaneses and the Palestinians pay the heavy price in terms of casualties and destructions, when the resistance’s chiefs (Syria & Iran) don’t join in the fight and are spared any losses?
QN, you also raise a good question vis a vis the morning after of the resistance enterprise. What’s the objective? Syria negotiates with Israel on one hand, yet the proxies want to throw the Israelis in the sea.
Syria’s strategy seems very conflicting. I don’t know if this by design/planning or lack of thereoff.
Posted by Ras Beirut | January 22, 2009, 1:39 amAIG,
You crack me up!
>>> Except for helping urologists in Bethesda they accomplished nothing
I’m sure some chiropractors were thankful for the business too…
Posted by Rumyal | January 22, 2009, 2:46 amQifa,
Off topic… (as usual with me… sorry…)
Check out the splashes that the movie “Waltz with Bashir” is making…
What “Waltz With Bashir” can teach us about Gaza
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/01/13/waltz_with_bashir/index.html
Also according to this report in Haaretz it arouses a lot of interest in Lebanon too. It says it was screen by an organization called UMAN. Heard of that?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057356.html
Posted by Rumyal | January 22, 2009, 2:59 amRumyal
I hadn’t heard about that. Leave it to the Israeli press to know about happenings in Beirut before Beirutis do. 🙂
I’m greatly looking forward to seeing it.
Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 23, 2009, 3:42 am