Introduction: A Neglected Topic from Greater Syria: The History of an Ambition Daniel Pipes On first entering Syria, the observant traveler will probably be Startled to go through passport control and notice a military map of Syria on the wall, for this map contains several anomalies. It shows the Golan Heights under Syrian control, though they have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Syria's boundaries with Lebanon and Jordan appear NOT as international borders but as something called "Regional" borders. Israel does NOT even Exist; instead, there is a state called Palestine. And Palestine is separated from Syria by a line designated a "TEMPORARY border". Finally, the province of Hatay, a part of Turkey since 1939, appears to be included in Syria; only on close inspection can one see the "temporary" border between it and Syria. The many inaccuracies on this map reflect the Syrian rulers' profound unwillingness to accept the actual size and shape of the country they administer. They remember that until 1920, "Syria" referred to a region much larger than the Syrian Arab Republic of today, a region that stretched from the borders of Anatolia to those of Egypt, from the edge of Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea. In terms of today's states, the Syria of old comprised Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, plus the Gaza Strip and Alexandretta. This larger land, known since 1920 as Greater Syria, is what they dream of reclaiming. Pan-Syrianism-the intention to piece together a Greater Syrian nation-is not a new phenomenon but has strongly influenced politics in the Middle East since 1918. The division of Greater Syria after World War I proved one of the worst of many political traumas experienced in the Middle East at that time. Pan-Syrianism explains many of the conflicting aspirations among Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians, Israelis, and Jordanians; it lies behind much of the volatility of public life in Jordan and Syria; and it partially accounts for the Lebanese civil war and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The goal of pieving Syria's parts together drove Jordanian foreign policy for over two decades, and it had nearly as great a role in Iraq. The future of the West Bank is bound up with this dream. Pan-Syrianism helps comprehend complex interactions between Pan-Arabists, Palestinian nationalists, and state authorities. The party that has advocated Greater Syria since 1932, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), has had profound political importance in the twentieth-century history of the two states where it has been most active, Lebanon and Syria. As the first political party fully to embrace radical secular ideals, it incubated virtually every radical group in those countries, with particularly great impact on the Ba'th Party. The SSNP offered the minorities, especially the Greek Orthodox Christians, a vehicle for political action and caused several of Lebanon's worst political crises. Its ideology influenced the development of Pan-Arabism (or Arab nationalism) and defined inter-Arab relations in the Levant region. Leading intellectuals such as Abu Khaldun Sati' al-Husri and Kamal Junbalat devoted considerable energy to combating Pan-Syrianism. Finally-and this may mark the apogee of its influence-the government of Hafiz al-Asad adopted Pan-Syrian ideas and made them Syrian state policy. Circumstantial evidence strongly indicates taht the Syrian government has since 1974 made Greater Syria the centerpiece of its foreign policy. Thus, in addition to offering an important new perspective on the events of decades past, the study of Pan-Syrianism provides a tool for understanding the policies of the Asad regime. Despite its critical role through the twentieth century, Pan-Syrianism receives little attention. Observers tend to view it as an aberration or a historical curiosity-and therefore as a matter of little consequence. Over a period of four decades, for example, The Economist has called two of Pan-Syrianism's most prominent exponents, the SSNP and King 'Abdallah of Jordan, many names. In 1947, 'Abdallah's plans were dismissed as "wishful thoughts." In 1962, the SSNP was "an activist right-wing movement of a slightly dotty kind"; it was deemed on the "lunatic fringe," "farcical," and "idiotic."..." Most at: http://www.danielpipes.org/books/greaterchap.php
HAHAHa! Heard of Greater Israel? All, of course, like everything else you say. One sided. Against us, even if it exists with you. And the relevance of this topic is?
And let me add, this topic is so random, and you so new a member, that it clearly serves no purpose other than bashing. You also never stated whether that was a good or bad thing.
'Greater Israel' is a Spurious Joke. The Israeli public basically divided into two camps, the 1967 borders or the 3% additional the of the WB the Fence takes. I don't think that qualifies as the idiotic 'Greater Israel' we oft here dragged up "From the Nile to the Euphrates". Yeah, 5 million Jews are going to control 300 million Arabs on a land mass 500 times their size. I hope they leave time for a coffee break, because they won't have time to do anything else. Syria, on the other hand, and it's policies re Palestine, Lebanon and Israel CAN be explained/understood by the size of some of their former lands, some in Syria haven't given up thoughts of retaking. So it's quite relevant in regards especially Lebanon of late. They seem to Kill all their Christian Leaders at will like they own the place. Go SSNP!
Ah and before I am off, another good point. Greater Syria is set on boundaries established by older Syrian lands. So, of course, you should have no problem with it seeing as Israel is also established on older Jewish lands. So you obviously do not mind a Greater Syria. Not that that's out of the way, I'll be off.
Well then, according to your logic of course, a greater Syria is justified. It was their older borders, through many empires of different peoples, and so Israel was also their in the olden days, so your very logic makes a Greater Syria...a greater choice.
Damn, I just had to come back. It depends. I don't see, if under an appropriate rule, what would be so bad about it. So long as no one is subjugated or anything, it would actually be positive. It'd just basically be Syria except bigger and without enemies. Nothing bad about that.
Well there you have it. I never heard a single Jew or Israeli (or anyone) advocate or even want 'Greater israel'.. and the Second Syrian I ask has no problem with it either. The First Syrian I asked had the handle SSNPguerilla.. So that's 2-for-2 "greater Syrians". Thanks, you made my day. and Board please take note. This does explain what's going on in Lebanon, at least, this very day.
Stern is no longer living and Israel doesn't have a 'charter'. Is that the best you could do? One dead guy? As I said, I don't know anyone advocating 'Greater Israel'; the Vast majority of Israelis are for the 1967 borders or a small adjustment based/foreseen on Resolution 242.
Then you have not looked closely enough. No problem with something that isn't a problem. Precisely. You are acting as if it's a bad thing. As I've said, it could be positive. So yes, I would have no problem with it. But your point? Absolutely nothing. Nor can it be. If you support Israel, then a Greater Syria is justified, seeing as it's going off of the same basis as Israel. And as I've said, you put words into my mouth. I said, as you asked, that I would have no problem with it, never that I cared whether it happened or not. So seriously, either have a point next time or don't even bother posting.
Pipes the Propagandist By Christopher Hitchens ...To put it bluntly, I suspect that Pipes is so consumed by dislike that he will not recognize good news from the Islamic world even when it arrives. And this makes him dangerous and unreliable.
Hitchens makes some good articles. So does Pipes. How about trying to distinguish which are which spidergoat?... now that Your Bias is Out.
Forget that. The point is, you simply stated the ambition. You didn't state if it was good or bad, or what you thin, or the effects of anything. There is no topic here. And then YOU ASK ME what I would think of a Greater Syria forming, and I said, while I would support it, that I won't go out of my way for it. And then you stuff words into my mouth.
It seems to me it would be easy to have a bigger Syria. Just ask the people in Lebanon and Jordan if they would like to unite into a Greater larger country called Syria. If so then it can be done, if not then it will not happen. It's really simple.
Precisely. And if it could be done with the consent of the governed, then it would be beneficial to the Middle East.
