Could Syrians become the new Palestinians?

Bashar al-Assad is victorious. But Syria's refugees may destabilise the Middle East for decades

THE monstrous dictator has won. Bashar al-Assad has bombed, gassed and starved his enemies out of the biggest cities. He has made fools of Barack Obama and David Cameron, who said he should go but did nothing to bring his departure about. He has shrugged off the missiles that President Donald Trump fired at his bases.
Half a million people have died. Six million people are displaced within Syria; a similar number have fled abroad. Most of the refugees are Sunni Arabs, who made up most of Syria's pre-war population of 23m. Still more may be pushed out as Mr Assad moves to retake mostly Sunni rebel areas in the north and south-west of Syria. His state, meanwhile, is becoming more narrowly sectarian as Alawite (his sect), Shia and Christian minorities start to take over property abandoned by the fleeing Sunnis (see Middle East & Africa section).
Syrians could thus turn into another dispossessed, festering, violent diaspora. Like the Palestinians before them, they could become a destabilising presence across the Middle East. The world has every interest in stopping that from happening.
Mr Assad's survival is a lesson in the use of butchery, the rivalries of his foes and the emptiness of Western pronouncements. By shooting peaceful protesters, Mr Assad provoked them into violence. By releasing jihadists from prison, he turned many into fighters for al-Qaeda and the even more gruesome Islamic State (is). Thus he persuaded terrified Syrian minorities to rally behind him, deterred the West from giving the rebels meaningful help, even when he used chemical weapons, and provided the cover for Iran and Russia to save him in the name of fighting terrorism.
This newspaper has long advocated Mr Assad's removal as the best way to end Syria's nightmare. That opportunity has gone. So what now? Mr Trump says he has no interest in Syria; once his troops have smashed is they will get out of the country's east. It is tempting to give up on Syria. Talking to Mr Assad would legitimise his atrocities. Giving him any money to rebuild his country would be doubly repulsive. Let Russia and Iran fix the devastation they have caused.
Yet that would be shortsighted. Apart from the moral obligation the world has to help the brutalised Syrian people, the West-particularly Europe-has hard-nosed reasons to stay engaged. One is the need to stem the flow of refugees who, along with other migrants, have fuelled populism in Europe. Another is the danger that a large population of Syrian refugees could act as a lingering poison in the Middle East.
The experience of stateless Palestinians is sobering. Those who fled or were pushed out by a nascent Israel in 1947-48 fomented much violence. Their raids helped ignite the ArabIsraeli war of 1967. Their fighters lost a civil war in Jordan in 1970; in Lebanon, they helped precipitate the 15-year civil war in 1975 and the Israeli invasion of 1982. Some also turned to international terrorism and helped radicals in Europe.
It would be no surprise if Syrian refugees-many times more numerous than the 750,000 Palestinians uprooted during the birth of Israel-became similarly radicalised. They would be easy prey for jihadists. Right now, even without violence, refugees are straining host countries, such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. A lesson from the Palestinians is that the longer refugees stay out, the less likely they are to return. Many Syrians flinch at the idea of going back, fearful that they will be killed, forced into camps or dragooned into the army.
Quid pro quick return
The first step to getting refugees home is some form of lasting ceasefire, and preferably a broader political deal. This should involve power-sharing in Damascus, and the devolution of power to the provinces. Mr Assad accepted little of this when he was losing. Would he do so now that he is winning? He is already reconfiguring the country in favour of those who stayed loyal. The West, and Arab states, have only weak levers. Still, he might want better ties with them to avoid becoming entirely dependent on Russia and Iran, to help him recover control of his borders and, above all, to find the billions of dollars he needs to reconstruct his shattered country.
America, Europe and Arab states could test his intentions by offering Syria limited humanitarian funds to help bring refugees home, on condition that he grants local autonomy. A good place to start would be rebuilding ghost-towns such as Daraya or Douma. Having missed the moment to push Mr Assad out, the world must hold its nose, and try to limit the consequences of the devastation it has allowed him to wreak

Obama played too safe in Syria because he supported Iran as some kind of overseer in the middle east (after all the plan was to continue arab spring but in gulf monarchies). But Iran played him and brought Russian in the conflict - if Putin wanted himself to step in the conflict and resolve it he should have done in 2012.

Iran and Russia cannot handle Syria separately. Ground forces are mostly iranian. Air forces - russian. And now Russia and Iran are in conflict. But none of them can handle Syria by himself.

And now Trump decided to leave Syria - nothing to do here if Gulf monarchies bring their troops there. After all USA is much more comfortable in orchestrating conflicts instead of participating in them directly. The great winners there Turkey and USA. But not Obama's USA.

"Could Syrians become the new Palestinians?"

With Russia using them to destabilise Israel, like in 1967, there is a chance.

You do know the Russians are a moderating influence on the Syrians vis-a-vis the Israelis right?

This is the first time I have heard some one allege the US supported Tehran. Where on earth did you get the idea that the US 'trusted' Tehran as any sort of overseer. It might well have acquiesed to Irans influence in Iraq but that was most certainly not through choice.

Equally you give Putin too much credit here. He might well have levers of power over Assad but to think he can act unilaterally to snap his fingers and Assad will bow down before him is simply not true.

They also cant handle it together as they both have very different agendas.

*expressing a wish to leave, whether the US will actually be able to extricate itself remains to be seen.

Also it should be noted the claim that most forces are Iranian is at best a half truth. They are shia militias for the most part from Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan et al. Not to mention Hezbollah, widely credited with being the only effective ground force in the war.

I'm also not sure how you can call either the US or Turkey "great winners" here. Turkey has got itself a bit of strategic depth into Syria but little else and by all measures the US has been trounced on in Syria.
The only people you can call winners here are Russia and Iran - possibly Assad depending on how flexible you're being with the term 'winner'.

And you are basing that on what? Because I referenced the 6 day War. You might want to read up on that.

The nuclear deal with Iran was the part of globalists to turn Iran into overseer in Middle East as there was a plan to destabilize gulf monarchies. USA wanted to provide shia corridor for Iran. Or at least supported it.

I suggest to read some blogs, documents or something. Not sure where to find it in English though. But they should exist. I read el-murid most of the time but it is in russian. There certain geopolitics discussions I run into from time to time. (but sometimes it is funny to read contradictory statements, like for example left claims that Putin is a chessmaster, while in Russia he is considered a huge failure that lead Russia to collapse)

Assad is nothing in Syria today. He exists simply due to Russia influence. After all the monetary support for militants on Assad's side come from Russia.

Yeah, yeah and who backs the shias? I guess the only strong shia country in the region...Iran?

Iran got instability and lost the possible shia corridor, while Russia got Assad to spend money from the budget and one out of three oil pipes. Heavy winner.

You do know its 2018 right? Things have changed a touch from half a century ago

So you didn't bother to read up on the 6dw. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. But no doubt you have some pointlessly glib comment and a emoji to go with it.

No i was just going to point out the inherent stupidity of trying to read Russia's foreign policy through the lens of the 1960's. As for anyone with even the most basic understanding of Russian and Israeli foreign policies we can see that the two countries are getting on famously right now.
I suggest you take a peek in the present if you're going to try and comment on it.

Even if that history is rather similar to now? Like I say those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. I suggest you learn some more history. Unless you are one of those Year Zero types. You know, thick, lazy people who find learning something a bit of a drag, and would much prefer to spout some opinion.

none the less though since when is there a popular mood of Putin being a failure? I havent heard a single person, bar some dissidents perhaps, try and make such a claim.

Thats a questionable leap of logic. Especially seeing as Syria hasnt really paid for anything yet. It has no economy to speak of and certainly no infrastructure.