What Is Israel's Reasoning Re Backing The Rebels?

[Picaro]

Not unlike the House of [Fr]aud (from 1933 onward), the rebels with ties to the mythical AQ beast are foreign plants; but whose to say Assad's replacement would necessarily be a devil Israel doesn't know?

It's more an issue of Assad versus a devil Israel knows is even worse, not one they don't know. I don't see this particular destabilization as being beneficial at this particular point and time.

You see, sectarian conflicts are to Israel's benefit, because Muslims fighting against each other are Muslims not fighting against Israel.

The entire civilized world benefits when Muslims fight each other.

I don't disagree in general, long term. However, ruining Assad while he's killing a lot of Al Q and MB mercenaries and supporters seems to me to not be the better option; they should just wait while both sides weaken Syria.

 

[Picaro]

The point is an attack on one helps the other side and shows support for them.

Exactly. If they were to pick a side, the obvious choice would be to back Assad in his attacks on the faux 'rebels' for at least a little while; they can change polices and deal with Assad later on; he's weakened regardless, and will be more pliable in the future.

 

[Picaro]

Unified Muslim world? LOL!

Yes, that will never happen, but nonetheless they can still do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people besides Muslims; they pretty much always have, and there have also been a lot of outsiders more than willing to help them.

Also Europeans would set them up like they have the other Syrian refugees, the ones pretending to be 'palestinians', and keep them in food and weapons so they can camp out on Israeli borders for a long, long time. And, there is also Jordanian stability to consider long term.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

So is America.

And Obama is pushing to attack even if over 70% of the people are against it.

Netanyahu may say one thing, doesn't mean we agree.

Most of Israelis wish much luck to both sides. Both are terrorists and Jew haters.

Why should we 'root' for any specific side?

The point is an attack on one helps the other side and shows support for them.

That point doesn't matter.

Most Americans are against it

That is not the thread topic. What is most appropriate is to make statements that address thread topics .

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The real question to me is "What does Israel really want?" I am not sure we know at this time.

Well, that's sort of the point of the OP; weighing up the pros and cons I see no net advantage for Israel and AIPAC supporting an attack on Assad. I also see no advantage to Israel for an American involvement in Syria as long as Obama is in office; he's not exactly a reliable ally for Israel.

​

The fact is Israel supported American military strikes on Assad, it does not really matter whether you understand why or not. Israel supported that action and AIPAC supported it. And both were true, despite the fact Americans opposed military strikes. But I am happy to say, at least so far the US is not fighting this war for Israel. In the battle of the American people versus AIPAC, the American people are winnining. Thats the story of where we are in this struggle today.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

A further point to make about the OP, while one can certainly argue attacking one side in a conflict is helping the other, another possibility is that the goal is to drag a conflict out, to keep the conflict going longer. You want to give an advantage to one side. It In the Iran Iraq war, Israel sold ammunition to Iran and we all know about the Iran Contra scandal. Did these countries help Iran, because they desired Iran to win that war? What do you say about using violence to keep wars alive? I call it choosing evil.

 

[Sunni Man]

The road to Iran runs thru Damascus.

Israel wants an Assad free and destabilized Syria.

So that the Israeli Air Force has a safe and clear air space in order to bomb Iran anytime it feels the need. ..

 

[Picaro]

The fact is Syria is already effectively three different countries now, and Assad can't gain back the other two thirds or so as it is. He only controls the western portion; wiping him out only gives the 'rebels' the Med port cities to operate out of. The 'rebels' control a stretch running from Turkey to Iraq, while the Kurds are busy setting up an autonomous state in eastern section.

Backing Assad would be the best choice, since his region is the closest to Israeli borders and thus far easier to attack if it came to that, which in turn makes him more susceptible long term to concessions, much as Jordan now is. The Islamist 'rebels' simply don't care and the more dangerous to have that close.

What do you say about using violence to keep wars alive? I call it choosing evil.

ME politics has always been violent, and they will always have wars; all 'peace' means to muslim countries is an opportunity to attack their neighbors and commit genocides and robbery. You can call it whatever you want, it won't change the essential facts re Arab politics, and hippy fantasies will never go anywhere in that region and the only 'peace' in muslim cultures have been under dictators.

 

[Picaro]

Iranian influence is over-rated; they go when the Russians go, and the Chinese aren't interested in committing to ground wars in the ME; they're interested in strategic encirclement of India, economically, and have other options besides Iran.

What's more, Iran is not Arab, and it has a substantial population of 'moderates'; when the Mullahs go, so does Hezbollah. The Saudis are the biggest obstacles to 'peace', and when the IRanian mullahs go, hopefully the international cocensus defangs them.

 

[Picaro]

The road to Iran runs thru Damascus.

Israel wants an Assad free and destabilized Syria.

They already have a destabilized Syria.

So that the Israeli Air Force has a safe and clear air space in order to bomb Iran anytime it feels the need. ..

Good for them. I hope they achieve that goal. The Russians will not be around much longer, they've hollowed out their economy and won't have the resources in a few years to amount to much; they'll be busy butchering their own citizens.

 

[Capstone]

[. . .] I don't see this particular destabilization as being beneficial at this particular point and time.

It's easy to see why you feel that way, given this:

...ruining Assad while he's killing a lot of Al Q and MB mercenaries and supporters seems to me to not be the better option; they should just wait while both sides weaken Syria.

That statement betrays a failure to see the foreign mercenaries (the ones responsible for the chemical attacks in March and August) for what they are: the proxy armies of the United States, Britain, Israel, and Fraudi Arabia.

 

[Picaro]

I can only speculate that Israel would like to see Assad go because Hezollah would suffer and Assad's chemical weapons arsenal poses a threat to them.

Yes. However, I see Assad as not going to be very belligerent for the foreseeable future; he has about a third of the country under his control, all close to Israeli borders and vulnerable to reprisals, which he can't afford in his current situation, the way I see it.

There appears to be some belief going around that the militant Islamists rebels who are involved in the fighting would not be the people who would govern Syria if Assad goes but I don't know how anyone can verify it.

I think that belief would be wrong, but I don't know how I would be able to verify that, either. I tend to think propping up a severely weakened Assad would be preferable to the alternative. I don't see him getting very enthusiastic over Hezbollah launching independent operations against Israel while he's too weak to do anything about it, while it's plausible he would launch what's left out of spite when he knows he's going down.

 

[Sunni Man]

The road to Iran runs thru Damascus.

Israel wants an Assad free and destabilized Syria.

They already have a destabilized Syria.

But not Assad free.

Assad still has control of Syria's air defense system and anti aircraft missiles. ..

 

[Capstone]

...[President Obama's] not exactly a reliable ally for Israel...

If by "not exactly a reliable ally for Israel" you mean he's too intelligent to be manipulated by Zionist war-hawks (and the majority of his senior advisers) into starting WWIII all by his lonesome, then thank god for that!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The road to Iran runs thru Damascus.

Israel wants an Assad free and destabilized Syria.

So that the Israeli Air Force has a safe and clear air space in order to bomb Iran anytime it feels the need. ..

Sounds like a win-win.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...[President Obama's] not exactly a reliable ally for Israel...

If by "not exactly a reliable ally for Israel" you mean he's too intelligent to be manipulated by Zionist war-hawks (and the majority of his senior advisers) into starting WWIII all by his lonesome, then thank god for that!

The words too intelligent and Obama don't belong in the same sentence.

 

[toastman]

The road to Iran runs thru Damascus.

Israel wants an Assad free and destabilized Syria.

So that the Israeli Air Force has a safe and clear air space in order to bomb Iran anytime it feels the need. ..

I really don't think it will get to the point where Israel launches air strikes against Iran's Nuclear facilities

 

[Sunni Man]

I really don't think it will get to the point where Israel launches air strikes against Iran's Nuclear facilities

Why not? ....Israel has attacked just about everyone else in the region; or talked the U.S. into doing it for them. ..

 

[toastman]

I really don't think it will get to the point where Israel launches air strikes against Iran's Nuclear facilities

Why not? ....Israel has attacked just about everyone else in the region; or talked the U.S. into doing it for them. ..

They haven't talked the U.S into doing anything. If the U.S wants to launch an airstrike, then it is the U.S that makes the final decision.
And who else besides Lebanon and Syria have they attacked ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I really don't think it will get to the point where Israel launches air strikes against Iran's Nuclear facilities

Why not? ....Israel has attacked just about everyone else in the region; or talked the U.S. into doing it for them. ..

Yes, but they were all bad.