Military Review

Three Asad. Why is continuity so important in Syrian politics?

26
Assad is Arabic for Leo. And this is symbolic, since the elder Assad, Hafez, the founder of a peculiar dynasty of Syrian presidents, for decades has established himself not only in the perception of the Syrians, not only in the Middle East, but also in the eyes of the whole world as a majestic and wise ruler.



Hafez Asad. TASS photo chronicle

In the best Eastern style, he skillfully, like few in the world, maneuvered between two opposing superpowers - the USSR and the USA, between socialism, which Syria declared a state doctrine, and a flexible attitude towards small and medium-sized national capital. Syria Asadov least of all resembles a concentration camp. At the same time, it must be said that even he underestimated the depths of the duplicity of the "civilized West", did not recognize it in all its glory. This was inherited by his son and successor Bashar.

Where does such complacency come from? Perhaps its origins are that the elder Assad for many years was reliably covered from outside encroachment by the powerful Soviet Union. Hence his rather tough and irreconcilable, much more irreconcilable than the policy of radical Islamists than Bashar al-Assad.

How can one not recall the forceful suppression of the armed uprising of the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Hama in 1982 - by order of Hafez al-Assad. Then, not only the Syrian special services, but also the armed forces up to heavy artillery and were thrown to suppress the armed rebellion tanks. Killed, according to perhaps overstated estimates, more than ten thousand people. But in the world these events did not receive wide publicity precisely because the Assad regime was under the nuclear-political umbrella of the USSR.

Then it worked. However, the fact of the rebellion suggests that the roots of the current religious conflict in Syria are quite deep.

Since the post-war period, and especially since the Assad clan came to power in Aria, the Alawites have been continuously reigning. This is a small sect within the framework of the Shiite trend of Islam with a strictly closed esoteric religious platform (some researchers even dispute the Shiite identity of the Alawites) and the way of life that was initially isolated from the whole world, mainly in the mountain villages of southwestern Syria. About the Alawite almost nothing was known until the rise of Assad. The very same elevation occurred in a truly miraculous way.

In this set of circumstances one can see the highest meaning. After World War II, the French colonial administration of the time of the mandate over Syria, in preparation for granting independence to this ancient country, began to form national armed forces. However, the local Sunni elite, representing the overwhelming majority of the country's population, considered service in the army unworthy of their sons and bought off from it. The first military schools were mainly formed at the expense of immigrants from the backward strata of the population, including the Alawites.


Bashar Assad - the successor of the policy of his father. Photo by Valery Sharifulin - TASS

So, Hafez Asad himself, who turned out to be among the future officers, practically could not read and write ... But he managed to quickly advance without patronage, without clan support. He graduated from the College of the Air Force, and then got into the USSR for military training and studies. He visited Moscow, Kiev, served in Kyrgyzstan. The Soviet army made a strong impression on the young Syrian. Respect for our country, he will save for life.

Then, when in the 1960-s not only in Syria, but also in other Arab countries, a wave of coups took place, young officers, armed with an attractive ideology of the Arab socialist revival, quite naturally came to power. Assad joined the Ba'ath Party as an unenlightened teenager, and by the 1960 years, his position was strengthened. After one coup, Assad led the Air Force and then all the armed forces of Syria, and after the second, in 1970, he became the prime minister of Syria. Soon he was elected president, although the elections were for the most part a decorative act. The power of Asad held tight. A series of coups in Syria ended.

Characteristically, the Ba'ath Party seized power not only in Syria, but also in Iraq. Having come to power, the Syrian Alawites, naturally, were forced to form the structure of the regime, given that they constituted a tiny minority (less than half a percent) of the total population. The regime acquired a clan-religious character. All the main posts in the army and special services were tightly controlled by Alawite.

Understanding the vulnerability of such a model of government, senior Asad tried to soften the structure of power by providing secondary posts in the party and government to people from other confessional groups. Thus, by the time he finished his career, the Syrian elite was a rather motley ethnoconfessional conglomeration of forces, the core of which was justly considered Alawite domination.

This could not but cause dissatisfaction with the 60-percent Sunni majority, no matter how hard the Alawites tried to give the regime a national scope. However, the Sunnis grumbled without much rage. With all the contradictions, the regime turned out to be incredibly stable! The deep traditions of eastern despotism have affected, the power vertical of the Alawite power has worked ... Moreover, Syria has traditionally remained a model of phenomenal religious tolerance for many millennia. In comparison with other countries in the region, this is simply striking.

Representatives of three monotheistic religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been together here for centuries without conflicts. And flashes of religious radicalism were almost always caused by external provocations. That most violent Muslim Brotherhood uprising in Hama was caused not so much by the accumulated discontent of the Sunni circles as by the subversive activities of the Western special services through the Egyptian headquarters of this radical and militant Islamic organization.

The policy of Hafez Asad relatively quickly produced brilliant socio-economic results. The centralized public sector, which saved the population from poverty, was successfully combined with freedom of movement and entrepreneurship for local (mostly Sunni) small and medium-sized businesses. In fact, it was a model of socialism with a human face. As part of the official ideology, people were free to travel around the world. Learn, trade, cooperate ... And at the same time, they lived in Syria safely. A simple example: when the senior Asad government retired in 1980, when I had a chance to work for several years at the Soviet embassy in Damascus, 6 – 7 killed an average of 14 million people per year. And at least half of the criminals managed to catch. They were publicly hung in bags on one of the central squares of Damascus ...

Perhaps, Syria was in those years one of the most socially safe countries in the world. Talking about monstrous repressions, secret dungeons of the Syrian special services is nothing more than a common imitation for propaganda. Every state has an obligation to protect itself from internal and external enemies, and violence cannot be avoided here. If an individual can and should even be gentle, good-natured, then no state can be such, because by its very nature it expresses the people's collective will to survive and defend themselves. From this point of view, the Syrian regime was no more dictatorial and repressive than any other regime in the Middle East.

The second of Asadov, whom I happened to know, is Basil, the eldest son of the president, and his fate, in my opinion, carries with it a tinge of wisdom. Initially, the elder Assad planned to transfer power to him. Even when I was in Syria, Basil Assad managed to become a general of the Syrian army and successfully developed a political career. However, in 1994, in 32, he dies in a car accident on the way from Damascus to the international airport. According to my impressions, Basil had a rather quick-tempered disposition and a penchant for sharp actions. Could he withstand the enormous psychological, intellectual and emotional stress that lay on the shoulders of his brother Bashar during the Civil War and Western aggression, which continues today?

From this point of view, the advance of Bashar al-Assad from historical The shadow looks optimal. Possessing an outstanding erudition and high-quality education obtained in Great Britain, flexibility of mind and perseverance of character inherited from his father, being both a philosopher and a warrior, the third Assad managed to adequately replace the great Hafez fifteen years ago as the leader of Syria.

An important difference between the two is that the son happened to throw off illusions about the West, which the elder Assad still fed. If Hafez Asad, preferring an alliance with the Soviet Union, professed the idea of ​​equidistance, Bashar, having lost the Soviet “umbrella”, fully felt all the “charms” of the western attitude towards vulnerable countries and peoples. All the hypocrisy of the ex-colonizers. It seems that in the person of the current president of Syria, Russia gets a much more reliable strategic ally than the senior Assad ...

If, as a result of the interaction of the regular Syrian troops with the Russian HQs, in the next year or two, it will be possible to completely clear the country of terrorists of various stripes, then Bashar Asad, as the winning hero, behind whose back will be an experienced and well-armed army, can form a new military-political bloc in the Middle East, to which not only Iran will join, but also Kurds, Palestinians, Jordanians and a number of other participants in the Middle East conflict, dissatisfied with both the West and the "fat cats" Persian Gulf. What is very important, this new axis will be based on Russia's constant military-political presence in the region, the beginning of which was laid by the creation of our air base in Latakia and the appearance of our ships in the water area of ​​Baniyas, Tartus and the same Lattakia.

Mass media attacks on Bashar Assad, under the far-fetched pretext of its anti-democratic nature, cause nothing but laughter. Thanks to a series of serious political transformations, the younger Asad managed to really expand the rights of all the main political and confessional groups of Syria. On his example, we can be convinced that the most optimal way to democratize any Eastern tyranny is not a violent invasion of the historical process, but a bet on the natural continuity of power, as a result of which more moderate and tolerant sons change their fathers.

Exactly the same fate awaited the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. But the West, interrupting the natural process, not only failed to achieve the declared result - the democratization of these societies, but also plunged them into the bloody chaos of collapse. For decades to come, the very possibility of restoring statehood and order there has been buried. In the case of the removal of Assad - and in fact insists on this the US administration! - The same fate awaits Syria.
Author:
Originator:
http://историк.рф/special_posts/три-асада-почему-так-важна-преемствен/
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. yuriy55
    yuriy55 13 December 2015 05: 42 New
    +6
    In Syrian politics, as in any other, the non-interference of other parties is important. The opportunity to solve internal problems without outside help is important (or until the legally elected head of state or people asks) ...
    Those who have not yet understood this will not last long ... This is the historical fate of all the "compassionate" and "those who carry democracy" ...
    Assad! Russia will help you!
    soldier
  2. Internal combustion engine
    Internal combustion engine 13 December 2015 06: 25 New
    -10
    Bush Sr. - Bush Jr., Aliyev Sr. - Aliyev Jr., Kim Sr. - Kim Jr. There are many examples. Again, in Russia there is a "controlled" democracy and "continuity" in the presidency. That is, the president in Russia is not the one who is the most suitable, but the one who will be patted on the shoulder by the previous prezik.
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 13 December 2015 19: 10 New
      +2
      Reveal the secret of how to catch by chance on the street most suitable? laughing
  3. sa-ag
    sa-ag 13 December 2015 09: 13 New
    -7
    "... It seems that in the person of the current president of Syria, Russia is getting a much more reliable strategic ally than the elder Assad ..."

    Some kind of idealistic model, Assad Sr. could control the state, albeit with some external help, but he, with the help of his army and power structures, Assad Jr. could not do this, moreover, he is now kept solely thanks to outside help, maybe he personally brave, brave and resistant, but as a ruler he is weak
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 13 December 2015 09: 57 New
      +7
      Quote: sa-ag
      maybe he is personally brave, courageous and resistant, but as a ruler he is weak

      So the author wrote about this, that Hafiz Assad rested not only on his charisma, but on the support of the USSR. As soon as she disappeared, pendos began to climb to everyone. Yugoslavia, Egypt, Libya, Iraq. Our allies had to pay for our weakness. hi
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 13 December 2015 09: 51 New
    +4
    But the West, interrupting the natural process, not only did not achieve the declared result - the democratization of these societies, but also plunged them into bloody chaos of collapse.... In troubled waters it’s easier to catch fish .. in the sense of pumping oil ...
  5. am808s
    am808s 13 December 2015 09: 54 New
    +5
    Russia only helps to resist the state of Syria without demanding a change of power or the policy of this power, implying that the people living in this state will figure out how to live after victory, so that there are different religious movements in Syria that does not say that there will be no peace. The world was there until the external enemies did not snag their nose. In Russia, they are also trying to pit everyone, but we live in a world while we understand this. And God forbid that the Syrians also understand this!
  6. knn54
    knn54 13 December 2015 11: 05 New
    0
    After four years of war, neither the allies (Russian and Iranian), nor the opposition can name the successor, who could give guarantees to minorities and maintain order, to prevent the formation of Islamic chaos ...
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 13 December 2015 19: 03 New
      +2
      This is the supreme art of the leader, to be always irreplaceable smile
  7. Kaiten
    Kaiten 13 December 2015 11: 37 New
    +1
    "Representatives of three monotheistic religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been living side by side here for centuries without conflict and are still neighboring."
    Excuse me, where did the Syrian Jews go?
    1. apro
      apro 13 December 2015 13: 06 New
      +3
      Succumbed to their historical homeland, the plan of the Jews is such a great outcome strictly to their historical homeland or to Israel or the SGA.
      1. atalef
        atalef 13 December 2015 14: 25 New
        +1
        Quote: apro
        Succumbed to their historical homeland, the plan of the Jews is such a great outcome strictly to their historical homeland or to Israel or the SGA.

        In the years 1947-1948, Jewish pogroms took place in some Arab countries. Pogroms took place in Morocco (in June 1948 - 44 dead, dozens of wounded), Syria (Aleppo pogrom of 1947, no data on the dead), Libya (June 1948 - 12 dead, 280 destroyed houses) and Yemen (Aden pogrom of 1947 - 82 dead, hundreds of destroyed houses), in Bahrain (Manama pogrom of 1947) and a number of others. 70 Jews were killed and about 200 wounded in Egypt by bombs thrown into Jewish quarters from June to November 1948 [161].
        Since 1948, Jews have been forbidden to leave Iraq. In 1950, a law was passed in Iraq that allowed Jews to leave the country subject to renunciation of citizenship, property, and the right to return in the future [171]. At the same time, the Iraqi government allowed Jews over 20 years old to take with them $ 16 each, Jews from 12 to 20 years old - ten each, children under 12 years old - $ 6 each [172]. Within three years, 123 thousand Iraqi Jews arrived in Israel [173].
        By 1950, as a result of the campaign of persecution and pogroms, 25 thousand Jews left Egypt, 14 thousand of them came to Israel. The situation of the remaining Jews in Egypt worsened after the coming to power of Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1954. The Suez crisis of 1956 led to mass arrests of Jews, confiscation of their property, and several thousand were deported. By 1967, 3 Jews remained in Egypt, [174] and by October 2008 there were 75-100 Jews left [175].
        On June 19, 1965, the government of Huari Boumediena came to power in Algeria. Jews were subject to special taxes, and the Algerian Supreme Court announced that Jews were not protected by law, an economic boycott of Jewish enterprises began, synagogues were desecrated and turned into mosques, Jewish cemeteries were destroyed. In 1973, approximately 1000 Jews remained in Algeria, and by 1998 there were only about 80 of them left [3
        According to the BBC radio station, by 2003, out of the 150 Jews living in Iraq, 34 remained, 6 of them were able to leave for Israel in July 2003 [181].

        WOJAC President Haskell Haddad and political scientist Guy Behor argue that the property of Jewish refugees in Arab countries is more than 100 thousand square kilometers of land, that is, 3,5 times more than the entire territory of Israel, including the Golan Heights, Gaza and Judea and Samaria. Most of this territory is in Iraq, Egypt and Morocco [169] [182] [183]

        In the Arab press, statistics show that up to 1948, about 800 thousand Jews lived in Arab countries outside Palestine. Almost all of them were forced to leave, and their property was confiscated.
        1. apro
          apro 13 December 2015 15: 53 New
          +1
          Alexander will now explain to the ignorant why this happened not only in the Middle East but also in Spain France Germany Poland Russia? What is the reason for these events? It would seem more or less prosperous for the Jews of the USSR where there were laws against atisimetism Jews fled.
          1. Kaiten
            Kaiten 13 December 2015 17: 47 New
            +1
            Quote: apro
            Alexander will now explain to the ignorant why this happened not only in the Middle East but also in Spain France Germany Poland Russia? What is the reason for these events? It would seem more or less prosperous for the Jews of the USSR where there were laws against atisimetism Jews fled.

            If you are interested in why Jews were persecuted in many countries where they lived, then the answer is very simple. The Jews did not have their own statehood in Europe. Living from the 3rd century in Europe, the Jews did not build their own state there, since they were interested in their country only in the Middle East. Naturally, a nation that did not have its own statehood was the first candidate for persecution because it was not protected.
            1. andj61
              andj61 13 December 2015 18: 21 New
              +2
              Quote: Kaiten
              Naturally, a nation that did not have its own statehood was the first candidate for persecution because it was not protected.

              It is hard to agree with your argument! There were also gypsies - they were not loved by everyone, but they were not persecuted; there were Armenians who did not have their statehood after the Middle Ages; Yes, you can give a number of examples about a number of peoples lead. And most of them did not pursue at all.
              You can consider the issue of Jews in the Commonwealth. At the beginning of the 17th century, the territory of Ukraine from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania passed into the Kingdom of Poland - but inside the same Speech. Ukrainian (they called themselves Russian) rich magnates - princes, as a rule, and a high-ranking gentry, began to adopt Catholicism. They needed money that could be walked in the capital - Krakow. And here begins the leasing of land to wealthy Jews. The Jews gave the gentry money, and then they themselves knocked out grannies from these lands and the available peasants - but already a hundredfold.
              Unlike Russia, there was no community, and all were enslaved in a cruel way. Churches, as a rule, belonged also to the gentry. But they did not need churches - they converted to Catholicism! And churches, too, began to be leased. Ordinary Orthodox could not baptize children, receive communion, confess, marry, or die without the will of a Jewish tenant — and tenants opened the church exclusively for free!
              Can you imagine WHAT the common people had towards Jewish tenants ?! And it immediately spread to ALL Jews, 95% of whom there was NO even tenant related to these rich people.
              And then the Cossack uprising began, and the Cossacks - the register - the Polish king was forced to admit by such former rebels (this is true with a few assumptions, in reality it’s still more complicated - from time immemorial they were divided into Cossacks and Buckwheat: they gave the tax in blood, protecting the land, others with products). And during the uprising, the Jews suffered naturally, and the small-town artisans not involved in exploitation were much more so than the involved tenants, who managed to escape. From there we went and a negative attitude towards Jews as a nationality, and pogroms, and, to a large extent, rejection of the Jews. But for the sake of truth, it is worth saying that Catholics and especially Uniates suffered from the rebels much more than the Jews.
              1. Kaiten
                Kaiten 13 December 2015 20: 22 New
                +2
                Quote: andj61
                There were still gypsies

                read how "Quentin Dorward" begins
                Quote: andj61
                were Armenians who did not have their own statehood

                Armenian genocide almost more than Jews. the last time in 1915. although not. they are still being persecuted in Syria, Daish militants.
                Quote: andj61
                From there we went and a negative attitude towards Jews as a nationality, and pogroms

                the first Jewish pogroms were still in Kievan Rus, when the Ashkenazi still did not live in Slavic lands.
                understand that a certain national minority will always be persecuted if the authorities do not protect it. The clearest example of this is the genocide of the Russian population in Chechnya.
                1. andj61
                  andj61 13 December 2015 21: 21 New
                  0
                  Quote: Kaiten
                  the first Jewish pogroms were still in Kievan Rus, when the Ashkenazi still did not live in Slavic lands.

                  Do not confuse Jewish pogroms with the Khazar ones. Khazars of the Slavs genocide cleaner! Although, in the end, they also ran into the answer. And then they did not make any distinctions - the Khazarin was a Muslim, or a Jew. But the Jews in Kiev lived quite well, including the Slavic Jews. Even in the annals the name Zhydislav is mentioned.

                  1. Kaiten
                    Kaiten 13 December 2015 21: 27 New
                    0
                    Quote: andj61
                    Do not confuse Jewish pogroms with the Khazar ones.

                    where are the Khazars. we are talking about the Jews of Kievan Rus, the so-called "Canaan".
                2. andj61
                  andj61 13 December 2015 21: 27 New
                  0
                  Quote: Kaiten
                  read how "Quentin Dorward" begins

                  It is not necessary to take for reality of the 12th century what was written in the 19th century. This is all on the conscience of W. Scott.
                  Quote: Kaiten
                  Armenian genocide almost more than Jews. last time in 1915

                  Armenians began genocide only at the end of the 19th century, and only the Turks, and at the same time with the Kurds, and a little later with the Greeks. Before that, the Armenians lived quite normal for themselves.
                  1. Kaiten
                    Kaiten 13 December 2015 21: 38 New
                    0
                    Quote: andj61
                    It is not necessary to take for reality of the 12th century what was written in the 19th century. This is all on the conscience of W. Scott.

                    Walter Scott knew history well and wrote his works based on the realities of medieval Europe. Gypsies in Europe were illegal, so they spread only to the Balkans (the former Ottoman Empire), and from there penetrated Europe already in modern times.
                    Quote: andj61
                    Armenians began genocide only at the end of the 19th century, and only the Turks, and at the same time with the Kurds, and a little later with the Greeks. Before that, the Armenians lived quite normal for themselves.

                    Wikipedia phrase. there are links.
                    Since the beginning of the XI century, Armenia has been subjected to an intensive invasion of the Turkic-Seljuk tribes, which led to disaster for the Armenian ethnic group [132]. The centuries-old process of expelling or forced emigration of Armenians from their historical homeland begins
                    1. andj61
                      andj61 13 December 2015 21: 49 New
                      0
                      Quote: Kaiten
                      Wikipedia phrase. there are links.
                      Since the beginning of the XI century, Armenia has been subjected to an intensive invasion of the Turkic-Seljuk tribes, which led to disaster for the Armenian ethnic group [132]. The centuries-old process of expelling or forced emigration of Armenians from their historical homeland begins

                      Another phrase from there:
                      The loss of national statehood after the conquest of Byzantium, as well as the invasion of the Seljuks led [53] [54] to a mass [54] [55] [56] exodus of the Armenian population from the occupied territories to Cilicia and other regions [54] [56] [57] [ 58] [59]. At the end of the XI century, Armenian statehood shifted to the west, to the historical Lesser Armenia, Cappadocia, Cilicia and Prievfratie. Here the Armenians founded the State of Filaret Varazhnuni, the Kesun Principality, the Principality of Edessa, the Principality of Melitene, the Principality of Pir and the Cilician State.
                      The most notable of these was the Cilician state, founded in 1080, it lasted three centuries, waging successful wars with the Seljuks and Byzantium [60]. In 1198, the Armenian principality was transformed into a kingdom. Having survived all the neighboring crusader states, the Armenian kingdom fell in 1375 under the blows of the Mamluk sultanate.

                      That is, Armenian statehood still existed after that.
                      And so - of course, the Armenians were significantly squeezed in comparison with the territory of Armenia of the times of Tigran 2 from the Caspian to the Mediterranean Sea - but they are not alone, the territory of modern Azerbaijan near Baku was then called Albania. And where
                      are these Albanians? First, the Seljuks genocide - and then the Oghuz Turks, whose descendants are called Azerbaijanis? Maybe. But the Armenians in those lands still live. But, for example, there are no Bodric Slavs in the territory of modern Germany. Here they are genocidal - despite their state.
                      1. Kaiten
                        Kaiten 13 December 2015 22: 05 New
                        0
                        Quote: andj61
                        But, for example, there are no Bodric Slavs in the territory of modern Germany. Here they are genocidal - despite their state.

                        That's right, otgenocidili after they lost their state. which confirms my thesis: "a minority that is not protected by the state becomes an object of persecution"
                    2. andj61
                      andj61 13 December 2015 21: 57 New
                      0
                      Quote: Kaiten
                      Walter Scott knew history well and wrote his works based on the realities of medieval Europe

                      As he realistically described King Richard, although he could describe it reliably - there are materials! But instead of a homosexual (even his mother Alienora of Aquitaine wrote about this, complaining about his lack of an heir), a bandit and a king, who had taken on duties in the country, he turned out to be a knight without fear and reproach, and even somehow jumped into England, although after he certainly wasn’t there. Very reliable! good W. Scott wrote novels, which in no way can be called reliable - but at one time I read them.
                      1. Kaiten
                        Kaiten 13 December 2015 22: 12 New
                        +1
                        Quote: andj61
                        As he realistically described King Richard, although he could describe it reliably - there are materials! But instead of a homosexual (even his mother Alienora of Aquitaine wrote about this, complaining about his lack of an heir), a bandit and a king, who had taken on duties in the country, he turned out to be a knight without fear and reproach, and even somehow jumped into England, although after he certainly wasn’t there. Very reliable! W. Scott wrote novels, which in no way can be called reliable - but at one time I read them.

                        So Dumas also led into the heroes of dArtagnan, who was actually engaged in anti-state activities as far as he was opposing the patriot Richelieu. That's what a historical romance is, to put your hero in a certain historical reality. However, with the historical reality in medieval England, Scott is fine.
        2. Pissarro
          Pissarro 13 December 2015 19: 02 New
          +1
          Indeed, since the time of the Persians, Romans, Greeks and Arab conquests, Crusaders, Egyptians and Turks, French and British, Jews have not touched Jews in the region for several thousand years. Suddenly, they rushed to cut it (though even you have data on those who died in Syria in 1947 , because there were no dead there.) The Jews went to build their country, for their dream, so they left. And it doesn’t matter whether they were traveling from the USSR or from Syria
          1. Kaiten
            Kaiten 13 December 2015 21: 17 New
            +1
            Quote: Pissarro
            even if you have data on those who died in Syria in 1947, there wasn’t because there were dead

            Do you have accurate data on how many Syrians died in today's civil war? nobody knows that. and 68 years ago and even more so. If you think that pogroms in Arab countries cost only cuffs, then look at the headless corpses of Christians in today's Syria.
            Quote: Pissarro
            The Jews went to build their country, for their dream, so they left. And it doesn’t matter whether they went from the USSR or from Syria

            yeah, they all threw their property together and, as true idealists, they left for Israeli kibbutzim. again, look at the flow of Alawite refugees in Europe in 2015 to understand how this happened in 1947. the difference is minimal. then there were Jews, now the Alawites.
            In December 1947, shortly after the adoption by the United Nations of a resolution on the partition of Palestine, a major pogrom occurred in Aleppo; all synagogues were burned.
            In August 1949, Muslims attacked the Jewish quarter of Damascus. Under the influence of these events, from the end of 1947, mass emigration (mostly illegal) of Jews from Syria to Turkey and Lebanon began, and from there to Israel, countries of Western Europe and America. From the late 1940s to the early 1960s About 10000 Jews left Syria, of which 5000 settled in Israel.
          2. padded jacket
            padded jacket 13 December 2015 22: 55 New
            0
            Quote: Pissarro
            The Jews went to build their country, for their dream, so they left

            Most likely, the flight of Jews from many countries of the East was caused by the desire of the Jewish elite to populate the territory of the newly formed state, and since Jews from Europe and the USA were not very keen to go into the desert and they built something there, they provoked a wave of pogroms so that exiled Jews would rush to Israel their housing and belongings from Muslim countries.
            Also, for the settlement of Israel, a wave of anti-Semitism was raised in Europe, but mostly Jews left there without prospects and prosperity.
            In Israel, they were given land on which they could build their own homes with the help of the state "pumping" money for the extermination of Jews in Germany and donations of wealthy Jews from the USA and Europe.
            Thus, so to speak, "the main Jews" acquired a labor force and defenders of the newly formed state and their loved ones smile and then they were able to create from them an army for aggression against neighboring countries and punitive units to pacify the Arabs remaining in the newly acquired territory.
    2. Lone wolf
      Lone wolf 13 December 2015 14: 03 New
      0
      Quote: Kaiten
      "Representatives of three monotheistic religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been living side by side here for centuries without conflict and are still neighboring."
      Excuse me, where did the Syrian Jews go?

      Kaiten excuse me, where are you going without Jews? laughing ??? There they were now there as in the whole world .... Judaism is written there ... and what do the Syrian Jews profess something else ??
      1. Kaiten
        Kaiten 13 December 2015 17: 53 New
        +2
        Quote: Lone Wolf
        now have

        Where did you find Jews in Syria? The Sunites and Alawites persecuted in the same way that the Sunites now persecute the Alawites. When the Alawites expelled the Jews from Syria half a century ago, they did not think that they would have to try on "Jewish happiness" and become exiles themselves.
  8. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 13 December 2015 15: 14 New
    +1
    See the root.
    Who benefits from inter-Arab / inter-Muslim hostility / war?
    Israel, whose goal is the construction of the Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
    At the place where the Muslim shrine is now located - Al-Aqsa Mosque.
    If the Muslim world is monolithic, then the attempt to demolish / relocate the Mosque will end in disastrous for Israel.
    The axis of world history is the Jewish question.
    Whoever understands this understands everything.
    The rest write dissertations.
    1. Kaiten
      Kaiten 13 December 2015 17: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: Pvi1206
      If the Muslim world is monolithic

      If
    2. andj61
      andj61 13 December 2015 21: 38 New
      +3
      Quote: Pvi1206
      Who benefits from inter-Arab / inter-Muslim hostility / war?
      Israel, whose goal is the construction of the Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
      At the place where the Muslim shrine is now located - Al-Aqsa Mosque.

      Think about it: Al-Aqsa Mosque stands on the Temple Mount. Why is this mountain so called?
      It was just that there once was a temple. No, not like that - the Temple is exactly the biblical Temple that is described in all three sacred books. After the Romans destroyed it (it left ruins and a piece of the wall - now it is the Wailing Wall) - the Jews were for the most part sold into slavery and they went into another exile. And the Muslims built a mosque - which is not the shrine mentioned in the Koran - much later in a place sacred to the Jews. yes And for almost 70 years of the existence of Israel, for some reason it was not demolished. request
      Quote: Pvi1206
      If the Muslim world is monolithic, then the attempt to demolish / relocate the Mosque will end in disastrous for Israel.

      The monolithic Muslim world is a fairy tale !. Even Sunnis are often happy to cut each other because of different interpretations of the holy books, and Shiites with Sunnis are generally enemies who consider each other heretics. And will they be one? laughing
      And nobody needs to demolish a mosque. On certain days (it is known how) they limit her visit to young, full of strength bearded men - and nothing more! fellow
  9. yury74
    yury74 13 December 2015 17: 15 New
    +3
    Syrians must be supported! This is one of the main foreign policy tasks .... Normal men (familiar with many personally) are waiting for us ... I really regret it. that I was not there when ours entered Latakia ... the entire coast passed .... OBSERVERS OUR OBSERVED .... They believe Russia, they believe in its strength and justice !!!!
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. -Traveller-
    -Traveller- 13 December 2015 23: 28 New
    +1
    Since the post-war period, and especially since the assassination of the Assad clan in Syria, the Alawites have continuously ruled. This is a small sect within the Shiite direction of Islam with a strictly closed esoteric religious platform.

    Alavism is about the same as in the Shiite direction of Islam, as voodoo in the framework of Catholic Christianity