On Spetember 1, I was interviewed by CNN journalist Kelly Murray, about my opinions regarding the Syrian crisis. I was sent the questions and e-mailed my answers back.
I figured, if the journalist knows my opinions, you – my friends – deserve to know them too.
So, if you could spend 2 minutes of your time, you may have a look at my opinions about Syria, Assad, Chemical weapon and President Obama.
Q: What are your thoughts on the US intervening in Syria? Do you think it is a good decision or not? Can you explain?
The Syrian people are suffering badly from the war inside Syria. Me, as well as every Israeli and hopefully everyone in the world, are wishing them only peace good life.
I believe that this crisis will be over only when the Syrian people and their leaders on both (or more) sides will decide that it has to be over, that they have much more to lose when continuing the clashes than when putting an end to it.
I don’t see a bad side a good side. No one of the many sides in this chaos seeks peace.
Everyone involved in this internal Syrian war are only after power and control. The ones who suffer most are – as always – the simple people, the innocents, their families and of course their kids.
I don’t know what the US government’s decision will eventually be but if there was an instant way to put an end to this situation, I believe it would have already been taken.
This is the Middle East. It is a very complicated area and no one really understands all the interests and the many powers that are active in this area.
I believe a short focused strike in Syria will show the Syrian regime that the world cannot stand aside for long and will give the Syrian leaders the understanding that they must put an end to this too painful war.
Q: Did you see President Obama’s address today on Syria, what are your thoughts on it? What do you think about him waiting on Congress?
President Obama gave a brilliant speech. He cleverly used the Syrian situation and the withdrawal from attacking name-less Syrian targets, to make his administration stronger.
No congress will be able to decide any other decision either then the decision he would ask for, under these circumstances.
This will also give America and Britain (on one side) and Syria and Russia (on the other side) the time for silent diplomacy that maybe will promote the solution in this situation.
It is obvious that Assad would do everything he can now to put an end to the crisis. The point is that if the other side(s) will believe that they will benefit from keeping the fights on – then they will not try to stop it.
Q: Are chemical weapons a red line for you, why or why not?
I believe the red line was a long time ago. The killing of innocents is a thick red line we could not avoid for such a long time.
The question is exactly what are “we” (the Americans / the Western world / the free world) can do that will put an end to this.
What will be really effective and will stop the killings.
The question is not about the aesthetics of the dead bodies and the causes for their death. The killings and of course the mass killings are the red line.
Q: What do you think would happen if the US went into Syria?
The Middle East is a very fragile area.
Going into Syria will probably inflame the area, will lead to bigger chaos in the short term and to the exchange of the Syrian regime on the long term.
Q: What are your biggest concerns going into Syria?
The situation described on the last answer is not among the interests of America, the western world and even the Syrian people.
“Our” interests are that Syria will be cooperative with the west and will not cooperate with Iran and its allies.
I believe that if president Obama and his people will be determined enough and clever enough, they will find a way to get better from the Syrian crisis as well as they succeeded in doing it with the president’s speech.
They then will offer Assad a combination that will include:
1 – That the world will let him stay on his chair.
2- That he will find a quick non-violent solution to the internal Syrian war.
3- That he will stop cooperating with Hezbollah and Iran immediately.
This will bring a better future for the Syrian people, for Israel, for Lebanon, for the Middle East and for the rest of the world.
This can happen just now, as Assad will do anything if he can stay on his chair.
Q: Seeing that the UK does not what to get involved with Syria, do you think other nations have an obligation to intervene with Syria, why or why not?
The UK voted so because they really do not think that bombing Assad’s interests will lead to a better future.
The UK understands the Middle East much more than any other country. They have been involved in the Middle east for decades and they have a good perspective on the area.
I believe they are very much obliged to helping the Syrian innocent civilians, but they also ask themselves what would be the right way to act.
I am sure that they will join the right action when they will believe that the right action is been taken.
President Obama actually took a short ‘time out’ now that will give America and Britain (on one side) and Syria and Russia (on the other side) the time for silent diplomacy that maybe will promote the solution in this situation.
We all hope for a better future in Syria and in the Middle East.
[Chami Zemach, Founder, The Israeli Family]