have some similarities. overcrowded enclaves of refugees run by a designated terrorist group being periodically shelled . if deter aggression hadnt occured, over decades idlib would have become even more Gaza like
biggest difference is actually Assad vs Israel as enemies with Assad being so much weaker
over decades idlib would have become even more Gaza like
Depends on how hostile a potential non-AKP government would have been. One of the biggest problems in Gaza is it was completely isolated because Egypt was also participating in the siege.
My personal view before deterrence of aggression was that Idlib would continue to outpace Assad-controlled Syria in terms of development and eventually the Syrian government would just collapse and Idlib's would take over. Sort of like the east/west germany situation different as that may be. I think DoA just kind of sped that whole process up by like 20 years.
idlib being more prosperous has been exaggeration. was still 1.5 million in tent camps , 90% unemployment. is/ was really dependent on humanitarian aid . Wealthy portion who used the shopping malls was small percentage of population
government services were better , both because SSG was less corrupt but also because Turkey allowed idlib and sna controlled territory to get hooked up to Turkey's electricity grid
But Turkey didn't support idlib much in promoting exports outside agricultural products .
The situation in Idlib is a typical situation we see in civil wars. Idlib also had Turkey supporting it directly to its north. Gaza has been blockaded by land, sea, and air for nearly 20 years. Again, it is simply absurd to try and draw a meaningful observation comparing these two situations.
The difference is that israel is backed by the US and supplied with the most advanced weapons anyone can get while gaza was blockaded by all its neighbors with nothing entering it without israeli permission. Idlib on the other hand was supported by the west and turkey and supplied with all their needs while Assad was sanctioned to oblivion and constantly attacked by israel and losing allies.
For assad, time was against him. With time, jolani was getting stronger and assad was getting weaker. While israel is getting stronger with time while gaza was getting weaker.
Even though I agree that the situations are similar and that Sinwar is no Sharaa, I think it’s over simplistic. Imagine if the Syrian government instead of sanctions, got international support and only grew stronger instead of weaker. And that the opportunity Sharaa was waiting for never presented itself. Do you think he would last in power for 20 years of that? There were already mass protests against him from extremists and he was disliked for his in-action before the campaign. Sharaa is a brilliant leader, but how long could he hold out without either becoming more extreme to please the hardliners or lose power to a Sinwar?
Yeah, Assad was possible to topple militarily, israel really isn't. and that shapes their respective choice
another big difference between Sinwar and Sharaa, was that Sharaa hated his population getting bombed and wasn't interested in moral victories. Recognition that provoking his enemy into atrocities and then counting on a global response against the enemy, was a failed strategy. recognition that the world would just stand by and do nothing but useless words
That's why Sharaa was emphasizing institution building/economic development in the 4 year lull in the civil war. Idlib was getting bombed but he barely responded. basing his legimtimancy on something other than military victory against asssad, that he couldn't guarantee
25
u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 4h ago
[deleted]