Is this article accurate and fair in saying that "the Syrian government dismissed a UN plan that would have left rebels in control of the east if al-Qaeda-linked jihadists agreed to leave"? Why did the government dismiss the plan?
2
-
1The syrian government considers the old border as it's dominion and has traditionally been happy to use force to dissuade any internal unions of factions within it. Assad is in effect the syrian government and he considers himself as the King of his nation.– bandybabboonCommented Nov 23, 2016 at 13:43
-
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is not about the understanding politics but rather about the accuracy of reporting of a historical event.– SoylentGrayCommented Nov 23, 2016 at 19:44
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
The article seems to be fair as the event was quite widely reported such as here and here.
Why did they do this? The following quote from the BBC article may help.
Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem, who met the UN envoy to Syria on Sunday, called the idea a violation of "national sovereignty".
As you said, it would have left rebels in control of the east. Presumably the Syrian government doesn't want the rebels to be left in control of the east.
-
2With the next US president wanting to retreat from the Syrian civil war and the Russians still willing to help the Syrian government, the chances of the government to win this war have greatly increased, so a ceasefire with the rebels would not be in their strategic interests right now.– Philipp ♦Commented Nov 23, 2016 at 13:57