In an address to the UN General Assembly on Monday, Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Ron Prosor, called on the international community to intervene in Syria to stop the systematic murder of civilians, breaking what has been mostly silence from Israel on the situation there.
According to Prosor, ”No decent human being can ignore pictures like this. It doesn’t matter where you come from, or to what faith you belong, or what politics you preach.” He said that Bashar al-Assad and his regime “have no moral authority to govern,” but made no explicit call for the removal of Assad.
Prosor’s statement – which invoked human rights but appears to be well-rooted in Israel’s geopolitical interests – puts to bed a certain amount of nebulousness surrounding Israel’s position on the situation in Syria, which was discussed within the context of the Iranian threat at the recent Herzliya Conference on Middle East policy. According to an Al Jazeera report from the conference, despite being consistently anti-Assad, Israeli policymakers speaking at the conference “maintained a strategy of silence towards the Syrian opposition.”
Is Israel hesitant to publicly support the opposition because it prefers to do so secretly – or because a weakened and discredited Assad is in Israel’s strategic interest? The possible fall of Assad would present a panoply of unknowns for Israel. Syria is seen as a key player in the Middle East. Damascus is central to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the US-Iran conflict, and the Iraq War.
Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy stated that Syria should be seen as a key factor in the Iranian complex. “The future of what happens in Damascus will have a major effect throughout the region, especially in terms of what this means for Iran,” implying that the collapse of the Assad regime gives Israel a leg up vis-a-vis Iran. Israel blamed Iran for recent bomb attacks in its embassies in India and Georgia.
Although Israel has not explicitly called for Assad’s removal, its attitude towards the situation in Syria is somewhat different from its position on Egypt under Mubarak before he was deposed. There, Israel did not explicitly call on the removal of Mubarak either, but had a clear interest (which it was not able to conceal well) in having Mubarak remain in power so as to keep the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups considered hostile to Israel at bay – even at the expense of continued dictatorship and lack of democracy. In the case of Syria, could Israel be cautiously optimistic that regime change could be favorable?
For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.
Aaron
Israel is supremely foolish to urge the violation of state sovereignty and the “international community’s” interference in a state’s internal affairs. As Larry Derfner might say, What goes around, comes around.
pabelmont
Aaron, agreed. Russia and China (and most states) have persistent human rights violations of their own and resist interference with their “internal affairs”. Their own “national interest” is to avoid having others take a close look and therefore they vote against (and veto) UNSC interference with internal affairs.
For Israel to “posture” as a human/rights champion is obscene, even ignoring human rights inside Israel (i.e., within the green line). What happens in the OPTs (and Golan) are NOT internal affairs for Israel, but internationally cognizant affairs to which the international community should attend (tho it doesn’t).
In this sense, Israel’s posturing w.r.t. Syria is a sign of how COMFORTABLE it is in its cocoon of protection from UNSC by lap-dog-USA.
So I indeed hope that what goes around comes around, but I doubt it will.
aristeides
The Saudis, whose hands are freshly bloody from repressing the uprising in Bahrain, are calling for intervention in Syria. It makes me think that a Saudi-backed opposition would probably be conditioned on abandoning Assad’s alliance with Iran. A convergence of interests between Saudi and Israel.
Jazzy
“Prosor’s statement – which invoked human rights but appears to be well-rooted in Israel’s geopolitical interests”
ooooooooo, burnnnn…
Lauren
Why does Israel constantly provoke its neighbors? We know that Israel & the US are arming the Syrian gov. “rebels” to destabilize the country. A first step to get through Syria to get at Iran. Every time I hear al-quada, I think Mossad & CIA. I’ve got a bad feeling that all this interference in the ME against countries will blow back on Israel and the US. As vunerable as Israel is…. you can’t fight off 1 billion muslims.
aristeides
Al-Q is backing the opposition, too.
Steve
To LAUREN:
1) The Palestinian Authority calls for the end of Israel’s existence and a “right of return” to make Israeli Jews a minority under a Muslim majority that supports Hamas.
2) Hamas want to end Israel’s existence by any means necessary
But Israel is “provoking the neighbors?” Really?
rico
@lauren
no, the u.s. and israel are not arming the rebels. that is fictional. but we SHOULD be arming them, because assad is an animal, a murderer of men, women, and children, and he should be stopped by whatever proper and expedient means are available to decent people.
no one is “interfering” in the arab spring. it is an internal conflict between a series of horrific dictatorships and the people whom they have oppressed for decades. a handful of courageous westerners have at certain moments supported the rebels in these conflicts, including when the u.s. had NO CONCEIVABLE STRATEGIC INTEREST to side with the protesters (ie, mubarak).
finally, the notion that declaring assad morally unfit to rule constitutes “interference” is intellectually lazy, at best.
@steve
this isn’t about the palestinians. but while we’re at it, the PA has frequently repeated that it acknowledges israel’s right to exist. it hasn’t declared that it recognizes israel as a “jewish state,” for perfectly legitimate reasons that should be obvious to everyone remotely informed on the subject.
Passerby
So when Israel wants to keep the dictator because he kept the peace agreement and a country ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood which is hostile (not “considered hostile”) could become another Iran right on its doorstep (and may not even remain a democracy after one election cycle), then it is acting unreasonably, and when Israel wants to lose the dictator, they are acting unreasonably.
———
What should Israel do?