Number of deaths are a lot higher than the BBC article says:
I’m seeing reports of over 1,500 dead now…
Unfortunately, this is pretty typical in many of these sorts of nations. The dictator is often a member of a minority ethnic group (like the Alawites Assad) or religious group (like the Sunni Saddam in Shia Iraq). (And of course, Alawites are both a religious and ethnic group, the two are closely tied in that part of the world).
When the dictator is in power, they often use their in-group as enforcers and government agents, and that minority tends to more strongly support the leader than the rest of the country as a result. And the dictator’s might protects these minorities from harm. But when the dictator falls… centuries of ethnic and religious tensions are compounded by political anger, and violence - often ethnic cleansing - follows.
Anyone who believes that Mr. Al Qaeda (who could also be called Mr. ISIS because he personally helped Al-Baghdadi put the second S in ISIS) intends to set up a democratic state in Syria that protects the rights of Alawites and Christians is delusional.
Just a small example of who you are dealing with… When al-Sharra and his fighters were holed up in Idlib they secured housing for themselves by expelling all of the city’s Christians and Alawites, and destroying the churches and Christian iconography just for kicks.
I haven’t researched this, so I’m just putting it forward as a point of consideration, but I can easily imagine that if you’ve got a territory that’s been divided into rival groups, largely lead by violent zealots of various flavors, the reality on the ground is rarely going to allow for a clean process of unification.
There may be some way to unite many of these leaders under an even stronger and more ruthless leader - but you would still need to kill some of them and their followers/adherents. But if you want to transition to a more peaceful and democratic government, you probably need to get rid of almost all of them and any peaceful approach to that is mostly just liable to push them into the hills, and have them causing problems everywhere for generations. Chopping off the heads of the organizations, and destabilizing the whole structure, is probably the only way to bring most of the populace into the common fold.
Again, this isn’t to imply that this is what’s happening. It may be - as you say - simple racial/religious animosity.
This is a rhetorical question, because the answer is “the French”, but - who decided that there should be such a thing as a single united policy called Syria encompassing that entire region?
In actuality, it probably should be a few separate countries. (When he’s pandering to the West, al-Sharra paints a picture of federalism. But I doubt he’s actually planning to give up central control.)
Bear in mind that the Syria Province of the Ottoman Empire has already been split into 4 pieces. First it was cut in half, with the smaller southern part going to Britain and the larger northern part going to French. Then the British cut off the eastern half of their section and created Jordan, and the French cut off a strip of coastline from the western part of their section and invented Lebanon. So basically, they started making it into separate countries, but they didn’t follow through.
As you note, the original Province of Syria was quite a bit larger than modern day Syria, and included both the British and French Mandates (as well as some Turkish territory, IIRC).
The French mandate was subdivided into six states. One would join Turkey, becoming the modern province of Hatay. Another was Lebanon.
The Alawites and the Druze each had their own state, and the remainder was divided between Aleppo and Damascus.
One could imagine a Syria that only included the former states of Aleppo and Damascus, with independent Druze and Alawites. The Druze would have been better off in such a scenario for the whole duration; the Alawites may have been worse off for a time, since they wouldn’t get to rule Syria, but it seems as if their fortune has now turned, and the decades on top may prove to be a curse.
I’m pretty sure that Turkey doesn’t want the North East to become its own country, at least…
But, in general, I don’t know that breaking the region up into tiny fiefdoms controlled by violent zealots would be good for anyone.
There’s no good answer to an area (of whatever size) full of armed violent zealots (of whatever persuasion). Dezealotizing (is too a word!) has to come first, before anything else begins to become possible.
On the other hand there is still a lot of sectarian violence. From only a week ago:
How are things going for our dear Al Qaeda fighter suit wearing president?
Syrian government forces enter a hospital and massacre dozens of Druze, executing them in their beds.