The first point about the Shia/Sunni schism is the primary reason I believe that the Hashemite King is the ideal compromise and yet also qualified choice to head the new nation. The Hashemite family, and particularly the lineage of the King are direct recorded descendants of the Grandfather of the Prophet. Thus he is "of the family household" of the Prophet. But he is also a Sunni. Until the House of Saud removed the Hashemite's from the lower Arabian desert, the family had been the rulers of Mecca and Medina for centuries. They are still technically the "keepers" of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to this day.
It is my belief that such historical roots plus factors of relative stability in dealing with all sides by both the King and his late father, make him a good choice to lead a larger nation.
As to the entire reason for a "larger" nation. Or "Greater Syria". Or Syriaq. It is for two primary and yet entirely separate goals. The first is the concept that the only reason that Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon would even consider the possibility of unification is because it might, .... just might...... also include and help resolve the Palestinian issue. And I mean the issue both within the Palestinian Territories and within each of the respective nations and their massive refugee problem that has been going on now for 65 years. It is not so much that Syria would join Iraq as it would be Syria joining with Palestine and Iraq joining with Palestine and Jordan joining with Palestine. And in the reverse, scenarios for peace in that area might also be more forthcoming if it involved not Palestinians but Syriaqi's or Syriaqians??
This also brings me back to the keystone position of Jordan in making such a unification possible.
Perhaps more than the entire group of nations forming Syriaq the more likely, but less viable to me, would be for the West Bank of Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Sunni and Kurdish Iraq creating a Greater Syria or Syriaq.
This would leave Gaza, Lebanon and the Shia dominated governorates of Iraq remaining outside the union. Ironically however I believe that if unification did look possible it would be Iran pressuring the three regions to be "inside the tent wielding power" and not outside looking in.
As for Russians. If the "theme" of a peaceful solution was "reunification of a lost greater nation" or "Greater Syria" and the current Syrian military were to remain, along with most of the upper government of Syria in some capacity and Russian forces got to keep the bases there, it would be Putin himself personally escorting Assad to the door. Whether it is "Truth and Reconciliation Councils" or whatever that keep the Syrians from wholesale removal as in the catastrophic blunder by the US in Iraq, a change at only the very top would be in the best interest of all.
And besides Russia who is already there and Iran who is already the "elephant" in the room also, this version of events leaves the entire solution to the problem entirely within the boundaries of those who are to be directly effected or not. And it is to be a democratic election to decide to join or not.
Too many minorities such as Christians, Kurds, Druze, secular Sunni's and Palestinians are flung as minorities among two or more of the nations involved. Their long term advancement would be much more viable within a single legal entity.
(Historical note: from 400 BC to 100 AD as an unscripted language and then from 100 AD to 800 AD Syriac was the Aramaic language of the entire Fertile Crescent.)
A Gordian knot yes. But either hack it apart with a sword or start picking at the various threads to see where they lead. For those in the knot there is not much choice for a tenable third option. And it is theirs to undo anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment