As it happened, General Brun made his accusation against Syria during a three day visit to Israel by America’s new Defence Secretary, Chuck Hagel – a man whose appointment Israel’s supporters in the U.S. had sought to prevent. Some Jewish organisations had come close to calling him anti-Semitic. Only by eating humble pie did Hagel manage to have his appointment confirmed. He now clearly hopes to put an end to his quarrel with America’s pro-Israeli lobby.

 On this his first visit to Israel as Defence Secretary, he announced that Israel was to receive a rich haul of advanced U.S. weapons — air refuelling tankers, cutting-edge radar and the V-22 Osprey ‘tiltrotor’ aircraft, an advanced plane so far denied to all other US allies. But Hagel’s generous gesture was to no avail. Although Israel was evidently delighted with the weapons, this did not inhibit it from accusing Syria of using chemical weapons – clearly in the hope of provoking a U.S. attack on that country.

 Unpleasantly surprised by General Brun’s claim that Syria had used chemical weapons, Hagel declared the very next day — on April 23 — that he had discussed Syria’s chemical weapons with Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon, but that neither of them had said that Syria had actually used such weapons. ‘They did not give me that assessment,’ he said. Clearly, Hagel was angry that Israel was putting pressure on the U.S. to intervene in Syria. The Israeli authorities may well have thought that Hagel, still recovering from the beating pro-Israelis had given him in Washington, would not dare dispute Israel’s assessment.

 What was Israel trying to achieve by inciting the U.S. to attack Syria? It would undoubtedly like President Bashar al-Assad to be replaced by a more pliant figure. But Israel is also worried that Jabhat al-Nusra, a violent branch of Al-Qaida, might come to power if Bashar were to fall. By accusing Syria of using chemical weapons, Israel’s goal seems to have been to trigger an early American armed intervention with the double objective of ousting Bashar from office, while preventing his replacement by the redoubtable Jabhat al-Nusra.

Israel is well aware that Obama — having pulled American forces out of Iraq and planning to do much the same in Afghanistan by 2014 — is most reluctant to commit US troops to yet another war. Nevertheless, by accusing Assad of using chemical weapons, Israel was clearly hoping to lure Obama into a Syrian campaign. Obama had, in fact, laid himself open to just such pressure by saying that any Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross a ‘red line.’

 Moscow was quick to leap to Syria’s defence. On April 28, Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the Russian journal Global Affairs, wrote: ‘Moscow does not believe that Assad may use chemical weapons: he is not a madman to ask for such trouble.’

 In fact, Israel’s objectives may have been even wider than triggering an American attack on Syria. For the moment, it is greatly satisfied that most of its Arab neighbours are in deep trouble.

 Syria is in the grip of a civil war, which has already claimed more than 70,000 lives.

Iraq seems to be on the verge of major Sunni-Shi‘a clashes, while still struggling to recover from America’s long occupation.

Iran is under painful sanctions because the US suspects it – on little evidence — of developing nuclear weapons.

Egypt is on its knees, wholly preoccupied with its own economic problems, and in no mood to endanger its peace treaty with Israel.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf States seem more worried by Iran than by Israel.

Israelis are also delighted that, thanks to President Obama’s mediation, the U.S.-Israel-Turkey coalition has been restored, and is set to be a powerful force in Middle East affairs.

 All this is very good news for Israel. Nevertheless, its dominance is not total.

It still faces something of a challenge from the Iran-Syria-Hizballah axis. Iran may be facing severe sanctions, but it is far from defeated. Assad’s Syria may be in dire straits, but it is fighting back, and continues to enjoy strong Russian support. Hizballah, Lebanon’s Shi‘a movement, may be under intense pressure from militant Sunni groups, but it remains the most powerful force in Lebanon.

 Aware that their attempts have – for the moment — failed to push the U.S. into an armed confrontation with Syria, Israeli spokesmen are already back-tracking. In New York, Yuval Steinitz, minister of strategic and intelligence affairs, was reported as saying on April 29: ‘We never asked, nor did we encourage, the United States to take military action against Syria.’ Iran, he declared, not Syria was the ‘problem No 1 of our generation.’

 These exchanges demonstrate Israel’s efforts to incite the United States against Israel’s enemies – and also the speed with which it withdraws when its covert efforts fail to produce the hoped for results. Israel is well aware that the U.S. is at present extremely reluctant to attack either Iran or Syria. Israel may, therefore, have to content itself with continued U.S. pressure on these two countries – short of actual war. The truth is that Israel may well think that its most threatening enemy today is neither Iran nor Syria, but rather Hizballah in Lebanon. It was Hizballah that fought Israel to something like a draw in 2006 and which, to this day, represents its most dangerous neighbour.

 It is interesting to note that Israel’s only armed intervention so far in the Syrian civil war occurred on Saturday, April 27, when it attacked a convoy making its way to Hizballah in Lebanon from Syria’s chemical weapons facility, the Scientific Studies and Research Center at Barzeh near Damascus. Israel’s evident fear is that any acquisition by Hizballah of Syrian chemical weapons would give the Lebanese Shi‘a movement considerable immunity from attack.

 By insisting that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons, General Brun’s aim seems to have been to persuade the U.S. to destroy both the Syrian regime and its Hizballah ally. Israel wants no limits on the extraordinary freedom it has long enjoyed to attack its neighbours at will and never be hit back. From Israel’s point of view, if America could be persuaded to do the job for it, so much the better. If not this time, another occasion will surely arise.

Patrick Seale, a leading British writer and journalist on the Middle East, the Observer’s former correspondent.

The war has torn Syria apart, caused vast loss of life, displaced a large part of its population, inflicted great physical damage, and even threatened the country’s continued future as a state within recognised borders.

President Assad’s enemies have seized control of large parts of the north and east of the country, as well as of several border crossings with Turkey. About half of Aleppo – the country’s second city – is in rebel hands. But the regime is fighting back, and has recently scored some successes, although at great cost to the civilian population.

Well over a million panic-stricken Syrians have fled the country and taken refuge in Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, and even, further afield, in Egypt. The number is increasing by the day. Another ten million people – about 40 per cent of Syria’s population – survive as best they can in rebel-controlled territory. Most rebel fighters remain encamped in their home areas, which they hope to defend against regime troops. But, as they lack anti-aircraft weapons, they are unable to protect their civilian populations from bombardment by government planes.

Created when Britain and France divided the Middle East between them after the First World Ware, the Syrian republic is now in danger of falling apart. What are the choices? Either the antagonists will persist in their life-and-death struggle, or they will decide to seek some sort of a compromise, which could save their country from possible partition. However, if the fighting continues, it will undoubtedly bring an end to Syria’s traditional role as a major player on the Middle East scene, and as the one Arab country which has been able to hold a ruthless and ambitious Israel more or less in check. That is the choice facing both the regime and its enemies.

Unfortunately, the latest developments do not seem to favour an early settlement of the Syrian crisis. In recent weeks, Moaz al-Khatib, a former imam of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, emerged as the head of an exiled opposition body called the Syrian National Coalition. Sickened by the violence which was destroying his country, he declared that he was prepared to negotiate with the Syrian government – without first insisting that Bashar al-Assad step down. Hard-liners have angrily contested this moderate position. After much discussion and controversy, Moaz al-Khatib was forced to step down.

He has been replaced – it would appear only for the next six months — by Georges Sabra, 66, a Syrian Communist of Greek Orthodox background, who has been active in opposition politics since the 1970s. He was jailed in Syria for eight years from 1987 to 1995, before going underground. His appointment is probably intended to wean some Christians away from Assad’s regime. But, although a brave man, Georges Sabra is not a major political figure. He may not have the necessary political weight or negotiating skills to contribute to a resolution of the conflict.

In fact, unlike Moaz al-Khatib, he has bitterly refused any compromise or negotiation with Bashar al-Assad’s regime. This is not an intelligent or constructive attitude, since it would seem that neither side can hope to win a decisive victory. The time has surely come for Syria’s antagonists to seek a compromise which will save their country from further calamities.

External powers have contributed to the present disaster. They, too, must decide whether to press forward in the hope of making gains which might bolster their own interests, or whether, on the contrary, they should encourage the warring factions in Syria to put up their guns and come to the conference table.

After more than two years of often savage war, with the loss of at least 70,000 lives and possibly many more, it is surely time to find a way out of this destructive conflict. The only sensible solution would seem to be a negotiation between the regime and its enemies under the joint auspices of both the United States and Russia, the two major external powers who, by taking sides, have so far served to keep the conflict alive.

Both Washington and Moscow are now beginning to understand that continued fighting is no longer in their interest, since the only beneficiary would be Jabhat al-Nusra li Ahl al-Sham (the Front for the Defence of the Syrian People), a rebel force which has emerged as the most ruthless, the most disciplined and – because of its blind devotion to militant Islam – the most ideological of all President Assad’s opponents. It is, in fact, none other than Al-Qaida, under the assumed name of Jabhat al-Nusra. This violent Islamist movement has distinguished itself by slaughtering prisoners and carrying out dozens of devastating suicide bombings across the country, including several in central Damascus itself.

Jabhat al-Nusra was widely believed to be planning a major assault on Damascus in the coming weeks. But this attack seems to have been put temporarily on hold, as the Jabhat wrestles with the problem of having been identified as an outgrowth of Al-Qaida.

In Washington, London, Paris and elsewhere – and also in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and some Gulf states — the will to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad is still there. But there is beginning to be some hesitation in helping the opposition destroy the Syrian regime if it means putting Al-Qaida in power in its place. It is clearly in no country’s interest — whether in the East or the West – for this violent movement to entrench itself in Syria and further destabilise an important but already fragile region.

Appalled by the widespread turmoil, many Syrians are anxious to spare their country further destruction. One organisation which, from the very start, refused to take part in armed conflict, and which has pressed for negotiations with the regime without preconditions, is the so-called National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change. Its main spokesman, Haytham Manna, has from the beginning opposed foreign intervention in Syria. He has repeatedly appealed for a negotiated solution to the Syrian war. He has bitterly opposed the recent decision taken in Istanbul to form a Syrian government in exile, as well as the move, driven by Qatar, to give Syria’s seat in the Arab League to the opposition. For long, Manna was virtually ignored. But, as casualties have mounted in Syria and as a cruel stalemate seems to be taking hold, his National Coordination Committee has gained ground and is at last beginning to be heard.

It is surely time for Syrians to unite to save their country from further senseless destruction.

Patrick Seale, a leading British writer and journalist on the Middle East, the Observer’s former correspondent