Personally I'd leave it all there for whoever comes across it to use, for whatever purpose, and you never know, Russia may need it all again in the future
Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
It is an entirely logical and sensible thing for a country to do. Israel are behaving terribly in Gaza (and elsewhere) and there are a huge number of things you can quite rightly criticise them for, but this is simply sensible and a precaution as nobody knows what comes next and a calm modern democracy friendly to Israel isn't very likely.
By blowing up a country's entire naval and military infrastructure? At the best of times Syria's armed forces were not a match for Israel, heck they weren't even a match for a ragtag bunch of militias and were basically allowed to survive as long as they did courtesy of Russia and Hezbollah. All Israel have done is ensure they have no means of defending themselves from anyone now. Its a completely spiteful gesture that has nothing to do with self defence, its the Israelis doing what the Israelis do, namely because they get away with what no other country does in the eyes of the west.
A country only in name at the moment with various factions in various places trying to gain/keep control and the unknown role of Turkey and Russia? If I was Israel I'd destroy the lot while I had a chance as there is a significant possibility that some of it could be used against Israel, plus fewer weapons of war can't be a bad thing in a country that is currently so fractured along factional lines. A bonus (for all of us) would be if Russia permanently lost it military bases and warm water port access.
Yeah, while they're at it, let them level the armed forces of nearby Lebanon and Iraq too, can't trust the various factions at play there either. Nothing like instilling hope into a new nation that's just overthrown a dictator by having an ethno-fascist colonial state hamstring them from the get-go, definitely a recipe for stability. I'm sure it also sets a wonderful precedence for how a supposed democracy conducts itself around its neighbours.
If the seizing of a buffer zones in Syria by its neighbours is wrong then why is it no one seemed that bothered when the Turks did the exact same thing years before Israel?
Its the same thing, and just as wrong. Just ask the Kurds. Heck the Turks also did it in Iraq when they essentially marched into Mosul. But here's the kicker - Turkey are a NATO power, using the threat of unleashing millions of refugees into mainland Europe as a crutch to absolve themselves.
When the French capitulated to Hitler Britain did the same thing to their navy.
Last edited:
I think any new nation that may or may not emerge from the rubble, one that now no longer has a military or Russians to operate the remainder, has far bigger fish to fry than what to do with the military equipment Israel destroyed.
Whatever you think of Israel their reaction to the fall of Assad has massively improved their security, removing any serious threat from Syria for a generation and also allowing them to better monitor and prevent attacks from Lebanon and Iraq with the capture of Mount Hermon. Why would anyone expect them to do anything else?
Because nobody gave a feck about the Kurds in comparison to keeping Turkey happy.
And who exactly would play the Hitler role in this scenario? The severely weakened Hamas and Hezbollah? The Syrian Rebels who themselves have had no confrontations with Israel and shared a common enemy with them?
Yeah, but I don't remember the outcry about it being as intense.
Winner winner chicken dinner
Do you recall what happened when the US decided it wise to decimate Iraq's military structure post fall of Saddam? The country descending into devastating civil war, with various factions occupying the central, gaping vacuum that was left. If the new Syrian transitional government has any chance of maintaining a modicum of stability, having their armed forces in working order would be a pretty pivotal start you'd think.
And as for your second point, Israel will never enjoy peace or security so long as it maintains it status quo of being a colonial aggressor. Building up an adversarial atmosphere from the get-go with factions they otherwise haven't clashed with hardly constitutes a good precedence for maintaining any sort of peace. Blowing up some outdated Russian grade armaments and ships isn't going to make them any more or less safer in the short term. On the contrary it'll only perpetuate the perception of them being an out of control belligerent force.
I'm not sure what your point is? The fact that Israel should be excused for their little military excursion into foreign territory on account of the Turks getting away with it too? To me it just sounds like hapless whataboutery, and I say that as a Kurd too.
The guy now in charge in Syria who fought as a foreign fighter in Iraq for AQ.
If you were an Israeli would you risk him taking control of these weapons or destroy them while you had the chance?
That's my point.
See above, and if you disagree fair enough.
The US's destruction of military equipment wasn't the cause of the factional conflict. It just meant it happened with fewer big guns and weapons.
Israel know that this is very likely anyway so not having any faction, especially the Islamist factions, having a large functioning military is obviously viewed as very good thing for Israel.
Well I guess we all want world peace but in the real world Israel is going to act to protect themselves in the situation that currently exists I'm afraid.
Blowing up the majority of the the old Syrian military and the Russian stuff doesn't make them safer in the short term as the factions will jockey for position (or potentially fight each other), but removing capacity for later possible action against Israel or making military action easy if any new Syrian regime is antagonistic to Israel, plus reducing the chances of the Russians regaining influence, probably makes this a no brainer for Israel. Not to mention it will earn brownie points with the US if it screws Russia over.
Last edited:
Which itself should be seen as a monstrous crime, especially as the UK has happily clamped down on Kurdish politics here for decades.
This kind of demilitarisation did not work so well for Iraq, and that country had 100,000 US soldiers in it.Personally I'd leave it all there for whoever comes across it to use, for whatever purpose, and you never know, Russia may need it all again in the future
This is also assuming the US, Russia and China won't flood the country with weapons within 6 months to fuel a civil war.
And again, this guy serves no risk to Israel whatsoever. If he had, you wouldn't have the US, EU, and UK looking to remove his current faction off the terror list. And the second he steps out of line, he'll have a drone hanging over him, or a bomb will go off at his residence. I've already mentioned it before, the likes of AQ and ISIS are not a threat to Israel, nor are Israel on their crosshairs (evident with the 'interactions' they had in the Syrian civil war). its the Iranian-backed factions who are, including the now deposed dictator of Syria.
It was the same principle. Bremner in his infinite wisdom decided the 'safest' approach would be to dismantle the entire military apparatus, essentially leaving the new government powerless to maintain order. And moreover - why were the West historically happy to arm these factions if they feared weapons getting into the 'wrong hands'?
Protect themselves from what? These rebel factions pose no risk to Israel whatsoever, namely because of the threat of being liquidated by Israel and its allies should they fall out of line. Getting their hands on military equipment they're probably not trained to use isn't going to exacerbate this imaginary threat. As I've said earlier, if they were deemed a threat they wouldn't be removed from Western powers' respective terror lists, nor would they have even been armed by them. if Israel truly wants to protect itself it could start by reeling in the very reasons that causes many in the region to view them in a resentful light, and these 'gestures' certainly don't remedy that.
What level of pre-emptive violence and land conquest would be logical and sensible in order to stop unstable belligerent Israel's designs on the rest of the Middle East? About 5 days of bombs over Tel Aviv, and cutting the country in two to hinder troop movement? Seems a bit mild given the radicalised populace, and a calm modern democracy friendly to its neighbours isn't very likely.
It didn't stop the factional fighting and who knows if it reduced the intensity of what did happen, but the risk of leaving it all there is far too big for Israel, especially given the blowback they would get internally if they left it there and it was used against them, after the cock-up of allowing the Hamas attack.
Don't be silly. What a useless contribution to the discussion.
Yes of course it's silly, because there is one rule for Israel and another rule for the rest. But for those of us who aren't representing that genocidal expansionist state, there's no need to indulge in its perferred double standards.
Maybe Israel should mind their own fecking business for once.
It is no such thing. Israel has no interest in expanding into Syria. They just want to make sure any potentially belligerent Islamic government or faction can't attack them or threaten them. Plus getting control Mount makes attacks from Iran or lebanon easier to detect and defend against.
Criticising Israel for many things is very justified but what they have just done isn't really one of them, as almost every democratic country would have done the same if the country next door goes to shit overnight.
A country next door coming potentially coming under the control of a former Islamic State leader/fighter is surely very much their business?
You could argue that they have proven to be more heinous than the neighbour can ever dream of aspiring to.
They already permanently control Syrian territory unchallenged for decades- it's called the Golan Heights. The US - the only country that counts - has ratified that conquest.
I have no idea what they want to do with their fresh spoils, but given that they can use the newly mountain to spy on two neighouring countries, and they can use their win as supremacist propaganda, I don't think they're going to give up that asset soon. In addition to the strategic mountain, they've cleared out a few villages and killed a few dozen or hundred in Damascus. And in your last line, I really have no idea what democratic has to do with it. Would an autoccracy not want to guard against neighbouring threats?
Every word you said would apply to Russia's rationale in Ukraine, and would apply multiple-fold in my scenario of Israel being dismembered.
Which is completely irrelevant.
And we're supposed to take that at face value? For starters they already occupy Syrian territory, which Netanyahu recently proclaimed would be 'Israeli for eternity'. And then you have their politicians mouthing off the quiet bit out loud, boasting of ambitions for a 'greater Israel', or
perhaps their national newspaper calling for 'lebensraum'. And that's not even going into their past invasion of Southern Lebanon, their intention to colonise Gaza once they've successfully ethnically cleansed, added to the daily land grabs in the West Bank.
If you take the Israelis for their recent word considering everything that's happened in the last year, or indeed decades prior, then I have a bridge to sell you.
A bunch of rocks that Israel only wanted/wants as a buffer.
They already permanently control Syrian territory unchallenged for decades- it's called the Golan Heights. The US - the only country that counts - has ratified that conquest.
It is rather obvious that a) they want to make sure they protect as best they can against any threat that comes from Syria (or whatever Syria becomes), and b) as a bonus get better ability to detect and protect themselves from attacks from Lebanon and Iran (and no doubt other military advantages).
Because any normal, rational democratic government (not just a controversial nation like Israel) would do exactly the same. Obviously.
That is a terrible analogy as the two situation couldn't be more different. Russia invaded a peaceful democratic neighbour to try to restore a semblance of their former dictatorship that they had before the break up of the USSR. Israel did not such thing.
You're just wrong here. You haven't been following Israel's bodypolitic and expressions, no longer hidden, of a Greater Judea. It's in the open.
Nothing is impossible but I'd strongly suspect they have zero interest in Syrian territory unless they are or feel threatened. What makes you think that they do? Why do you think they gave Sinai back? Because the threat from Egypt reduced to close to zero.
The Golan Heights was captured to give them a buffer zone against the Arab forces that aimed to destroy them in and around the 6 days war. They haven't tried to expand that as the buffer was working. I'm afraid thinking of the Golan heights as Syrian Territory is futile. That horse bolted over 50 years ago. Probably better trying to solve things that are current and urgent. Like Gaza for example.
Israel will react exactly as you would expect. They will over-react every time, justifying it as self-defence, even if it is mainly at the expense of civilians, as Hamas and Hezbollah well know. Expecting Israel to fundamentally change is as futile as expecting Hamas and Hezbollah to give up their terrorist badges.
What has Israel's word got to do with any of it?
What a load of rubbish. Israel has no such interest in Syria. Obviously. That they behave like a bunch of cnuts doesn't mean you can invent any old rubbish and it becomes fact.
> Israel has no interest in expanding into Syria
> Israel's previous permanent expansion into Syria is good and permanent and a buffer zzone that's a good thing
> Israel's current expansion into Syria is good and strategic and a buffer zone for the buffer zone
> Israel has no interest in expanding into Syria
> Israel's previous permanent expansion into Syria is good and permanent and a buffer zzone that's a good thing
> Israel's current expansion into Syria is good and strategic and a buffer zone for the buffer zone
> Israel has no interest in expanding into Syria
You say with utmost confidence that Israel has supposedly no interest in occupying the Syrian territory, I'm stating that's a painfully naive opinion to hold considering their history, and the fact they remain the only nation in the middle east not to have officially declared its borders. And you know what, they'll likely continue to occupy the territory listing the same reasons you yourself have adhered to - 'more buffer zones', 'self defence', etc. And the reasons they'll do so is because they'll receive no pushback, certainly not from the US (who stronghands anyone that dares attempt to reprimand them). And simply saying 'oh Israel will overreact' like its an accepted fact of life is also a sorry position to hold, how about we actually draw a line for these feckers to abide by instead of essentially giving them carte blanche to do as they please in the region, while falling for their nonsensical security-based justifications.
What possible reason do they have? They don't want or need the land. History shows you that buffer zones were part of the 6 day wars objectives. Countries that played nice got land back e.g. Sinai.
They will hold buffer zones while buffer zones are needed. A Syrian government (or large faction) headed by a former IS leader is such an obvious red flag that no nation would be happy having that on your border. Assad's regime was despicable but that doesn't mean what will follow will be good.
It is a fact of life. That doesn't mean not pushing back on them but if groups like Hamas and Hezbollah attack them they will react hard every time. Hezbollah and Hamas know this and lie ti because they know they can cause Israel to react this way which derails normalization of relation between Israel and moderate Arab nations. The cycle of violence sadly does seem to be here to stay.