Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Should Israel protect the Alawites?
Saturday witnessed the shocking scene of Alawites pleading for Israeli protection. I say shocking because the Alawite-dominated government of Syria was an ally of Iran. They helped undermine Lebanon and were a critical part of the anti-Israeli axis for generations. Mere months after the tide turned, they suddenly wanted our help. The Alawite concerns are not unreasonable. They took power and, realizing the cost of ever relinquishing it, did more and more atrocious things to maintain it. The massacres of Hama and Homs in the 1980s, the secret police (Mukhabarat), the prisons (Tadmur being the leading example until recently), and the shooting into crowds of protestors. All of this was done with the understanding that they could be facing a genocide should the Sunni majority retake control of the country. Many minorities supported Alawite rule due to the same fear – albeit one that probably wouldn’t be expressed as violently as those other minorities weren’t actually in charge.
The Sunni majority has now retaken control of central areas of the country and some “elements” have indeed conducted atrocities against the Alawite community. Random shootings, lootings, etc… have occurred. Alawite resistance to this has fueled further violence. For context, they are about 10% of Syria’s population while the Sunni population is around 70%. In an all-out war, they could indeed face extermination. About 1.7 million Alawites live in Syria with around 500,000 total outside the country (with the vast majority close by in Turkey and Lebanon). The crisis currently facing the population is indeed existential. So, given the clear humanitarian challenges facing the Alawites, should Israel help?
A young Alawite girl reportedly killed over the weekend. Source: X.
I think it is no coincidence that this upsurge in violence has occurred on Shabbat Zachor. Shabbat Zachor is our annual remembrance to “erase the memory of Amalek.” Amalek is the Jewish people’s diametrical opposite. They were so strongly opposed to the Jewish people that they were the first to attack as the Jews emerged from Egypt – despite the miracles that had occurred there. Despite Jewish perspectives arguing that Amalek had no reason to attack Israel, the text itself suggests something very different. In the time of Avraham, the king Kedarlaomer carried out a war to seal his economic dominance in the region. Interestingly, the text suggests he was the head of an alliance that spanned from Iran to Turkey. As part of this war, he burned the fields of Amalek. Avraham saw all of this and did nothing. Then Kedarlaomer took Avraham’s nephew Lot as a hostage and Avraham sprung into action. He ended up killing Kedarlaomer and rescuing the people who had been taken by him.
In the eyes of Amalek, it was too little, too late. Avraham could have helped earlier but didn’t. They were hung out to dry. Avraham, I believe, was wracked by guilt over his inaction. So much so that G-d seems to defend his choice. Bereshit/Genesis 15 starts with: “After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying: ‘Fear not, Abram, I am thy shield, thy reward shall be exceeding great.’“
Avraham was fearful and I believe this was the basis of his fear. He was worried he had fundamentally misstepped. Amalek certainly believed he had. They maintained their hatred of Avraham’s descendants as a direct result of this decision – so much so that they were eager to go to war with the Jewish people at the very first opportunity.
The parallels to our present day are strong. The Alawites are being persecuted by an alliance of Sunni forces from Turkey to Turkmenistan, the Amalikites were persecuted by a broad alliance. Israel is not stepping in (despite probably being able to) and Avraham didn’t step in. Most importantly, if the Alawites are indeed decimated, Israel will probably feel the moral burden of having not interceded to save them. Finally, the remaining Alawites’ hatred of the Jews – for having not saved them – will be preserved for generations.
So – assuming we have the military capacity to intercede (and that is not so straightforward, Latakia is reasonably far away for an effective Israeli projection of power) – what should we do?
Is it our responsibility to protect the minorities of Syria?
Before we jump into an answer, I want to contrast the case of the Druze. Avraham was supposed to rescue Lot. With 318 men he overwhelmed Kedarlaomer’s presumably massive army. It was a miraculous victory. He rescued Lot because he was family. Lot wasn’t going to inherit the mantle of the Jewish people. The bulk of his descendants would form neighboring peoples. But they were family. And so when Avraham stepped in, he was protecting those with whom he had a family relationship.
I believe the Druze fall into the same category today. They have stood like brothers with us. They have sacrificed for our people. They should be treated and protected just as Lot was. If that involves eliminating Jolani, so be it. They have earned our protection. In fact, by building a familiar bond, they have become an extension of the positive relationships that can actually bring peace to the region. The network of peoples looking out not just for themselves but for others has been and is being extended. It is a beautiful and, I would argue, holy thing.
The Alawites clearly do not fall into this category. The only thing militating for their protection is the fact they are threatened by the same people who threaten us. However, perhaps that, and the mere preservation of a reasonable ancient culture (they originated in the 9th century), are reason enough to step up for their protection. After all, we wanted American, British, French, etc… protection during the Holocaust. We didn’t receive it, but we believed more proactive involvement would have been appropriate and is appropriate today on behalf of other threatened groups (e.g., Bosnians, Darfurians, Tutsis, Uighurs, etc…). This idea is a core of Holocaust education today. The vocabulary of this education is, in fact, being used against the Jewish people in their war with Hamas and the people of Gaza.
If defense of “family” is not a reason to step up, why not defend them in the interests of stopping the genocide of a minority people – even one that seemed to be your dedicated enemy just a few months ago? Wouldn’t we want that?
To make the question just a little bit more challenging, let’s add one more twist: Just a few years ago, the Alawite government was carrying out mass atrocities against the Sunni majority. The scale of these atrocities has become clearer and clearer with the end of Alawite rule. At that time, Israel was providing aid to Syria Sunnis – including medical care and possibly even small arms. Now that the tables have turned, do we then flip our allegiances to the losers? Are we always going to ally ourselves with them – just because they are the ones under the greatest threat? Maybe we could flip and flip and flip under some sort of static level of mutual violence is reached with Israeli arms holding the entire region in the balance? It seems somewhat insane, right?
Then, there is one more wrinkle. A strong Syria led by anti-Israeli forces (whether Sunni or Shia-axis) is not in Israel’s interest. Both sides in this conflict have demonstrated their anti-Israel credentials. Neither would, under almost any circumstances, come to our aid. In fact, given the opportunity, recent history suggests that both would pile on given the chance to genocide the Jewish people (although the Alawites might do so just to burnish their Arab credentials and strengthen their position vis-à-vis Iran and not due to some Wahhabi or Ayatollah-fueled hatred of Jews).
To summarize the arguments so far we have this:
- The Alawites aren’t family.
- The Alawites have a generational history of war against Israel.
- The Alawites are facing genocide, like we did. They are also facing ongoing atrocities.
- We supported anti-Alawite forces just a few years ago – protecting them against Alawite atrocities.
- Given the chance, the Syrian Alawites would have genocided the Jews.
- And one more: the Alawites are allied, and continue to be allied, with our existential enemy – The Islamic Republic of Iran.
Given all of the above, I believe Israel does not have an obligation to go to war to protect the Alawites in Latakia. It is in our interest to limit the military power of Jolani and we’ve been doing that (imagine what they’d be able to do with all the tanks, missiles and ships we destroyed). That said, Israel can indirectly enable the Alawites to escape – something that would have been wonderful for the Jews of Europe. Not to Israel – given the Alawite track record in Syria – but to someplace.
Where? The answer may well be Lebanon, where as many as 200,000 Alawites already live. How could Israel facilitate this? The answer may be as simple as extending a security umbrella over Lebanon. Recast the destruction of Hezbollah arms-shipping as a protection of Lebanese sovereignty. State that Israel will not enable Syrian (e.g., Turkish) infringement on that same sovereignty. State that military actions are geared towards supporting a reluctant but threatened Lebanese state – just like Israel is doing with the reluctant but threatened Druze population of southern Syria. Then Israel can work towards a peace treaty with economic benefits for Lebanon. And encourage Lebanon to welcome the now well-educated and relatively wealthy Alawite population of Syria. Just as Israel is a multi-ethnic safe space, Lebanon and the future Druze and Kurdish regions of Syria could be the same (the Druzim could also welcome Alawite refugees, with our security blanket). The Alawites would indeed suffer severe displacement – but the damage would be limited.
I believe that it is the creation of multi-ethnic safe spaces that can lead to cosmopolitan societies that are actually capable of moving past the cycle of atrocity and counter-atrocity. Anytime there is the smallest bud of such a possibility in our region, we should encourage it to grow. The military imposition of ethnic peace should be limited – it just does not work. But limited military support of those who are independently developing their own cosmopolitan – and liberal – societies should absolutely be in Israel’s interest.
Are the Alawites Amalek? Will they hate us forever for not having rescued them in their homeland? They may. That unreasonable hatred does not by itself justify trying to preempt it. And it is unreasonable hate. Jews don’t harbor hate for the British or Americans for reacting slowly against Hitler. Jews don’t even harbor hatred for the Germans of today. We recognize that multi-generational vendetta is a terrible thing – even if you might find some way to justify your logic.
That’s why I believe the commandment to eliminate the memory of Amalek is less about exterminating the people of Amalek and more about eliminating their own ability to remember and sustain their hate. We are obligated to fight against the culture of vendetta – to erase certain kinds of memory.
It is only by encouraging those willing to move past vendetta – which may well include the new government of Lebanon – that Israel can achieve its historical mission and perhaps even bring peace to our region.
What do you think?
To read all of my writing, subscribe to my substack.
Published in Foreign Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community
of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
There are 20 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
A long ago Lebanese friend who lived in pre present day Israel as a child told me that “The Alawites are dogs, they will always bite the hand which feeds them.” I think he would have recommended strongly that they should only be helped from a distance.
The Alawites have been a desperately poor and oppressed minority from their genesis about 1000 years ago until the French came along in 1923. Desperately poor and oppressed minorities have a tendency to adopt cultural values that enable them to survive. For example, certain Jewish populations continue to have a poor reputation in business due to now outdated rules that basically said they could take advantage of their oppressors if they needed to to get by (consider that the Jewish population of Europe didn’t grow until Napoleon because Jews just couldn’t afford to feed their children due to exclusion from many trades). These cultural values are NOT acceptable once the situation changes. However, they can be hard to shake.
In Lebanon, they’ve remained pretty poor and beat up. In dealing with the Alawites, you have to deal with the reality of their culture. At the same time, they are people too and you have to leave a guarded door open for positive change.
It can, and does, come – which is why only certain Jewish sub-populations (for example) hang on to those old and now unethical business practices.
The picture says a lot…
Syria is a seething mass of hate, the inhabitants have spent many years sowing the wind. No members of the IDF should lose their lives working on things that don’t have a direct bearing on Israel’s future.
Israel and other countries should not try to assist Muslims because if you save them now they will kill the other tribe later. There is simply no peace in Islam.
From my very limited and second hand knowledge, Israel is currently in the process of destroying itself from within. The Israeli Supreme Court has usurped total power in Israel and is attempting to put Netanyahu in prison. This sounds like suicide to me. Under these circumstances, is Israel in the position to help someone else?
There is humanitarian justification in helping the Alawites relocate elsewhere.
What I would like to know is to what extent is Turkey involved? I get the vague impression that they are a rising power in the region. This contrasts with Iran that appears to be in decline both economically and demographically.
It’s probably in Israel’s self interest to support the creation of an Alawite state on the coast around Latakia.
With the realpolitik knowledge that the Alawites will be thrown to the Sunnis if they ever support terrorism again. Brutal but I don’t think you get to be the nice guy in the Middle East.
Ayan Hirsi made my point better than I.
According to the Hebrew Bible, Amalek was the son of Eliphaz (himself the son of Esau, brother of Jacob) and Eliphaz’s concubine Timna. According to a midrash, Timna was a princess who tried to convert. However, she was rejected by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. She replied she would rather be a handmaiden to the dregs of Israel than be a mistress of another gentile nation. To punish the Patriarchs for their attitudes, God caused Timna to give birth to Amalek, whose descendants would cause Israel much distress. (from Wikipedia)
Yeah, everybody forgets the earlier mention of Amalek the actual nation in Genesis 14.
Another interesting event regarding our ememies occurs in Genesis 21:16-17. Hagar has distanced herself from her son Ishmael because she does not want to see him die of thirst. God reassures her that He has heard the cry of the boy “where he is,” saying that Ishmael will father a great nation, and then a water well appears, saving the boy. Traditionally, Ishmael is considered the progenitor of Islam, whose devotees will become intractable enemies of the Jewish nation, and yet God spares him because of “where he is” at that particular moment in time, regardless of what he might do in the future.
I take this one further. I think G-d spares Yishmael because of what he’ll do in the future. In the Torah reading of Mishpatim there are two laws enforced by G-d. One is not to mistreat the stranger and the widow or G-d will make widows and orphans of our people. The word for stranger is ‘ger.’ Avraham’s concubine was ‘HaGar’ – literally ‘the Ger’. Sarah mistreated her and her descendants make widows and orphans of Sarah’s descendants.
It is critical that we constrain our enemies – even killing them when necessary – without seeking to oppress them.
Otherwise, G-d’s punishment awaits.
Sarah sent Hagar away because of the negative influence Ishmael was having on Isaac so I don’t think we can fault her for that. In fact, when Abraham hesitated to send them away, God commanded him to accede to Sarah’s wish.
The 2nd time.
The first time, Hagar was getting uppity:
And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. And Sarai said unto Abram: ‘My wrong be upon thee: I gave my handmaid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.’ But Abram said unto Sarai: ‘Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her that which is good in thine eyes.’ And Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her face.
Fast Forward
And the angel of the LORD said unto her: ‘Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son; and thou shalt call his name Ishmael, because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren.’ And she called the name of the LORD that spoke unto her, Thou art a God of seeing; for she said: ‘Have I even here seen Him that seeth Me?’
JoshuaFinch (View Comment):
JosephCox(View Comment):
JoshuaFinch (View Comment):
Another interesting event regarding our ememies occurs in Genesis 21:16-17. Hagar has distanced herself from her son Ishmael because she does not want to see him die of thirst. God reassures her that He has heard the cry of the boy “where he is,” saying that Ishmael will father a great nation, and then a water well appears, saving the boy. Traditionally, Ishmael is considered the progenitor of Islam, whose devotees will become intractable enemies of the Jewish nation, and yet God spares him because of “where he is” at that particular moment in time, regardless of what he might do in the future.
I take this one further. I think G-d spares Yishmael because of what he’ll do in the future. In the Torah reading of Mishpatim there are two laws enforced by G-d. One is not to mistreat the stranger and the widow or G-d will make widows and orphans of our people. The word for stranger is ‘ger.’ Avraham’s concubine was ‘HaGar’ – literally ‘the Ger’. Sarah mistreated her and her descendants make widows and orphans of Sarah’s descendants.
It is critical that we constrain our enemies – even killing them when necessary – without seeking to oppress them.
Otherwise, G-d’s punishment awaits.
Sarah sent Hagar away because of the negative influence Ishmael was having on Isaac so I don’t think we can fault her for that. In fact, when Abraham hesitated to send them away, God commanded him to accede to Sarah’s wish.
That is not what I was taught. I was taught in my Sunday school classes that Sarah sent Hagar Ishmael away because she was concerned that Ishmael would inherit the family business, which was the herd of sheep. Abraham was blind and very old and Ishmael had run the business for several decades. He was fully in charge by the time Sarah became miraculously pregnant at a biblical age. She wanted to make sure that her son inherited the business and became leader of the Jewish people. It was a vicious and deceitful act. I was told that Hagar and Ishmael her son went on to begin the Arab people. And thus began the blood feud between the Jews and the Arabs.
Read the text. God insisted that Abraham heed Sarah’s demand to send Hagar way.
I heard that Ishmael became the founder of Mohammed’s line of Arabs the Hashemites. There are so many Arabs I don’t think that even a son of Abraham could make that many kids.
Well, there’s gotta be a first one somewhere sometime. 😁