WarSclerotic

The number of deaths in the civil war raging in Syria long ago surpassed the cumulative death toll of all the years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and there is no end in sight to the slaughter taking place there. The cruelty of the fighting in Syria knows no bounds. None of the sides have any red lines or inhibitions and the rules of right and wrong do not apply. Morality? Geneva Convention? There is not even a trace of these in the Syrian bloodbath.

The brutality reached a new peak last week with the chemical weapons massacre in eastern Damascus, in which the number of victims (who included many children) reached four digits. The cliché “and the world is silent” has been used by many media outlets in recent days. And the following questions have been asked: Where is the U.N.? Where is the free world? Where is the West? Where is the U.S.?

But the truth is that the situation in Syria poses a very tough dilemma. While it is impossible to accept the ruthless tyranny of Syrian President Bashar Assad, one also has to consider the alternative. The coalition fighting against Assad is very complex, with many fierce internal divides. But the dominant element consists of global jihadist groups, conducting a Sunni campaign against the Shiites in general and the Alawites in particular. The free world has no interest in Syria being taken over by al-Qaida.

In the Syria conflict, there is no good side or bad side. It is not democracy versus dictatorship, peace seekers versus warmongers or humanists versus bloodthirsty animals. The difference between the warring sides is that one has chemical weapons while the other still does not. And it is important to remember that the side that does not have chemical weapons was the one that carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks, with box cutters.

The free world does not want to see Syria’s chemical weapons fall into the hands of jihadist groups. The free world also has no interest in toppling Assad, because his enemies are not any better than he is. But the free world also does not want the use of unconventional weapons in the Middle East (which is replete with crazy and uninhibited regimes) to become legitimate, and the norm. Therefore, without intervening in a massive way or helping one side or the other, the free world — led by the U.S. — must launch a surgical attack to destroy the chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria.

A year ago, U.S. President Barack Obama set the use of chemical weapons as a red line. Since then, Assad has slyly used chemical weapons several times here and there to test America’s reaction. Due to America’s restraint and silence, Assad felt confident enough to commit last week’s savage massacre. By avoiding taking action against the use of chemical weapons in Syria over the past year, Obama further weakened America’s already shaky and deteriorating status in the world, and particularly in the Middle East. Most of all, it conveyed a message of weakness to Iran, signalling that Obama would not back up his pledge to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Obama’s sluggish response so far to last week’s chemical massacre is the true test to America’s superpower status. The eyes of the world are on Obama.

And what about Israel? Should we intervene in Syria? Absolutely not. Israel has no interest in the war between its enemies. It is not our job to be the policeman of the Middle East. Israel is providing humanitarian aid, and this is the only involvement it should have. Israel must stick to this policy.

However, one could say that Israel already has taken a very important step for the good of humanity and Syrian civilians. Thanks to Israeli military action six years ago (according to foreign sources), the unrestrained tyrant in Damascus does not have nuclear weapons. Israel’s military strikes against Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 and, reportedly, Syria’s nuclear reactor in 2007, contributed greatly not only to Israel’s security but also to well-being of humanity as a whole.

In light of Obama’s weakness, I fear that Israeli military action against the greatest threat to humanity — Iran’s nuclear program — will also be unavoidable.