Michael R. Fischbach is Professor of History at Randolph-Macon College. The Professor Fischbach specializes on the history of the modern Middle East, especially Palestine, Israel, Jordan, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. His researches interests in: land tenure and ownership in the Middle East, especially in Palestine, Israel, Jordan; land claims and the Arab-Israeli peace process; Palestinian refugee property claims; Jewish property claims against Arab countries; Black Power, the New Left, and the Question of Palestine in the U.S. in the 1960s-1970s. We contacted the Professor Fischbach to discuss the current situation in Syria and the International Community’s position regarding to the Syrian case. The Professor Fischbach responded to our questions in an exclusive interview to Gulan Magazine as the following:

* After the international community failed to take a decision against Syrian regime we see that all the observers are expecting from the Security Council members United States, the European Union, the Arab League, and Turkey to take a decision outside the United Nations, but the international community still reluctant to authorize any kind of military intervention. In your view; how is it possible to limit the actions of Syrian regime?
- The situation facing the global community is different than what face the global community in the case of Libya, I think for many people the natural comparison is to look at what happened in Libya last year. I think there are three major problems that I can see that the world community faces; the first problem, as I'm sure that you and your readers know, is that Russia and China are far more reluctant to authorize any kind of intervention as in the case of Libya. Secondly; there is the entire question, not only of Turkey but more importantly of Israel and Iran, and that of course brings up questions such as Hezbollah and Hamas and the Palestinians. So; the west in particular is much more concerned about an intervention that might lead to a wider regional war particularly at the time when there is already is conflict with Iran. Thirdly; I think from the united states perspective, in an election year, the president Obama will be very reluctant to get involved in any major foreign policy move that is not absolutely convince will be successful. Now; as for what the world community can do without the military intervention, this is a problem and I don’t have a good answer, I know that some including Saudis have been in favor of, and in fact already are involved in smuggling weapons into Syria, but a lot of those countries themselves are concerned that if the violence continue there could be a complete collapse of order, everyone looks at the example of Iraq after 2003. The difference too with Syria is that there are not many types of vital strategic resources that one can boycott, for instance like Iran to stop the oil, Syria has oil but it is not nearly strategic but it is much more of an isolated economy. So frankly; I'm not sure, as an individual, what more the world community can do to stop the bloodshed except perhaps work to convince the Syrian regime that even it is backers in Russia in China will eventually turn against him, but; it is a difficult question and I'm afraid I don’t have an easy answer.

* Supporting the Syrian opposition so as to topple the Syrian regime is currently discussed but some expert think that it is really difficult to topple Assad by opposition, so as the opposition is unable to topple the regime why the west is in favor of the continuation of bloodshed?
- Well again; there is two ways one can answer that. On the one hand; people in the west and the American senator John McCain who ran in president in 2008 and has been one of those who have suggested that the west cannot tolerate letting more bloodshed occur. On the other hand; if people openly intervene militarily or supply large amount of weapons to the opposition, there will still be bloodshed, it is a very difficult situation because to stop war and bloodshed by bringing about more war and bloodshed is a very difficult thing to do, there have been some in the Syrian opposition who have called for the military assistance, who have said that: “we understand that will bring about war and more violence but in the end that is preferable to the our suffering”. On the other hand; again, it is a philosophical problem; how can any one stop bloodshed by bringing about more bloodshed through military intervention? And that’s a difficult question. For me; I also have to consider that the west intervention in any middle eastern country is always something that is very problematic for me personally, if someone were calling on a country like Switzerland or Sweden to do something in Syria it might be different, but within history of the past 200 years of intervention, of colonialism, of invasions, of imperialism, I personally; I am very suspicious when I hear western countries talking about: “we have to do something militarily to stop the bloodshed”, particularly when they did nothing to stop the bloodshed in Lebanon in 2006, or in Gaza in 2009. So as an American I'm always suspicious when Americans suddenly been concerned about Arab or Muslim blood with another situation they do nothing.

* Some experts think that the attitude of Russia will change after elections in which Putin may support international community but Syrian regime has claimed the winning of Putin as an achievement so how do you interpret this? What will happen to Russian position?
- Well; I'm not an expert on Russian affairs, it is hard for me to predict. I do know that over the years that one of the things that has made Putin popular in Russia is the perception that he showed a strong stand against the western pressure on Russia. So it would be hard for me to think that now that he has won the elections that he is going to suddenly appear to his people to be more understanding of America, more receptive to go along with American initiative, again I'm not an expert on Russia but my thought will be quite the opposite; that after winning the elections he would mandate to continue in his strong Russian nationalist policy, and part of that has been a policy is to stand against the American efforts in the intervention.

* Media broadcasting the bad situation of the Syrian people in addition to the continuation of the Assad’s mass murdering by Assad’s regime in a humanity view point how it is possible to help these people?
- On the humanitarian level it is proven almost impossible, in fact with only within the past several days that The International Red Cross and the Syrian RED Crescent were actually allowed into the Baba-Amr district of Hums, and it is after a month. The sad reality is; that in a closed dictatorial society, it is often very difficult for outsiders to inter, journalists have to be smuggled in, as you know the new York times Times journalist Anthony Shadida died in Syria, and I actually knew him when he was a young man, it is hard to get an aid, it is hard to get an observers, this is one of the challenges of the 20th century, and now of the 21th century is that; in closed societies, it becomes almost impossible for outsiders to bring everything from aids on the one hand, to even spies on the other hand, the United States found this out in the case of Iraq; that it was almost impossible for the CIA to have any kind of ageneses inside of Iraq. So; I'm sad to say that humanitarian aids, just like anything else, is very difficult to get into Syria.

* The remaining of Assad in power considered as an achievement in Iran at the same time failure to Saudi Arabia, to what extend the remaining of Assad in power will threaten the stability of the area?
- It could, of course the logical question one could ask is; did the Assad regime damaged Middle East’s stability until now? In fact the Saudis and the United States in deed, even whether they admitted or not, even Israel, has long felt that the regime of Hafiz Al-Assad and later Bashar Al-Assad were actually considered quite stable regimes. So; it would be interesting for a country like Saudis in particular who have had long ties with the Syrian regime for decades would suddenly now consider the remaining regime to be a threat, when never thought a threat before. I think for the Saudis even the bigger problem is Iran and they are a well-aware as you suggested that Iran have a very deep ties with Syria. So I think for the Saudis is not even so much whether Assad stays or goes so much as what would be the impact that be on Iran, will it be seen as a victory or defeat for Iran? As for Iran; it is certainly feeling surrounded, the Syrian crisis is a great significant to Iran because one of its only military alternatives in case of an attack by Israel to mobilize Hezbollah and of course it arms Hezbollah through Syria. So; that how I view that situation.

* The international community can no longer deal with Assad’s regime according to an opinion due to the legitimacy of Assad’s regime, so as Assad’s regime lost its legitimacy why the world doesn’t take this step rapidly? Don’t you think that friezing Assad’s regime first makes it easier to topple it down?
- I think that there are various additional steps that the western community and the world community could take. Again; part of me is very suspicious however, because like many other dictatorships; the Syrian regime has been involved in significant human rights abuses for decades, and we think of the destruction of the city of Hama in 1982 were perhaps 20,000 people were killed and yet the world community and the United States continue to recognize and collaborate with the regime of Hafiz Al-Assad. So; I think it is important to ask ourselves now, even though the destruction of Hums and other cities, still far fewer people have been killed now, and so find now is the world community suddenly so concerned about the legitimacy of the Assad’s government when it hasn’t been in the past? It is a similar question about Iraq; why there was suddenly great concern about Saddam Husain in 2002, when the world knows him since 1960s he has been using chemical weapon against the Kurds? I'm always suspicious when people suddenly discover a human right situation that has in fact existing for a long time.


Transcription: Mahmud Samih