Middle East Politics

I cannot believe some people here are actually defending Israel destroying Syria's military infrastructure.

They shouldn't have done it, but then again, who is going to stop them. Internally, they are probably looking at it from a risk perspective - as in, "should we take our chances by leaving Assad's military hardware in place by betting that woke Al-Qaeda won't one day use them on us?".
 
is it not about time that the jordanians and the egyptians created a buffer zone outside their borders for their own security. what with having a neighbouring country run by religious lunatics intent on using their army and well funded militia groups to create mayhem.
 
is it not about time that the jordanians and the egyptians created a buffer zone outside their borders for their own security. what with having a neighbouring country run by religious lunatics intent on using their army and well funded militia groups to create mayhem.

If Jordan and Egypt think there is a realistic chance of being attacked directly by Israel, do you mean?

If so, I’m a little confused, are you saying you think that’s likely/possible/feasible?
 
They shouldn't have done it, but then again, who is going to stop them. Internally, they are probably looking at it from a risk perspective - as in, "should we take our chances by leaving Assad's military hardware in place by betting that woke Al-Qaeda won't one day use them on us?".

A view not shared by some on here it seems.

You have far more military knowledge than I do. Can you explain to me how old frigates or radar stations would have been used to attack Israel? I’m going to assume military grade naval vessels don’t come with instruction manuals lying around usually?
 
A view not shared by some on here it seems.

You have far more military knowledge than I do. Can you explain to me how old frigates or radar stations would have been used to attack Israel? I’m going to assume military grade naval vessels don’t come with instruction manuals lying around usually?

A Reuters report I just read cited the destruction of missiles, aircraft, ships, and infrastructure, so that would be fairly substantial in terms of capabilities should the new Syrian government attempt to pursue anything militarily against Israel, whether for the Golan or otherwise.
 
A Reuters report I just read cited the destruction of missiles, aircraft, ships, and infrastructure, so that would be fairly substantial in terms of capabilities should the new Syrian government attempt to pursue anything militarily against Israel, whether for the Golan or otherwise.

That wasn’t what I asked though. I didn’t ask about those other capabilities.

I also didn’t mention chemical weapons because I actually believe that Israel (or Turkey or the USA or whoever) would be justified in bombing those production facilities.

I asked specifically how a group like HTS would use frigates (without even mentioning that I imagine those frigates are incredibly outdated) and in particular radar systems to attack Israel?
 
"Any military deployment in the separation zone between Israel and Syria is a violation of the disengagement agreement of 1974," a French foreign ministry spokesman says in a statement today.

"France calls on Israel to withdraw from the zone and to respect Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock took a similar stance on achieving a peaceful transition in Syria, noting: “[Israel] must not jeopardise the process with their actions.”



France and Germany not getting the memo from redcafe it seems (for reference Baerbock also rightly mentioned Turkey).
 
I asked specifically how a group like HTS would use frigates (without even mentioning that I imagine those frigates are incredibly outdated) and in particular radar systems to attack Israel?

Naval ships and naval bases are considered strategic weapons and infrastructure, so they wouldn’t be placed in a different category than planes, tanks, radars etc. Anything deemed a potential future threat would be on the list.

As for HTS and ships, we don’t know since they probably don’t have any experienced sailors in their ranks, but then again they also probably don’t have many MiG 25,29 or SU 22,24 pilots either, nor many qualified cargo plane or helicopter pilots.

From the Israeli side, they are probably looking at this from a risk mitigation perspective; a once in a lifetime shot at neutralizing any military threat Syria may pose should the new government assume a hostile posture in the future.
 
Naval ships and naval bases are considered strategic weapons and infrastructure, so they wouldn’t be placed in a different category than planes, tanks, radars etc. Anything deemed a potential future threat would be on the list.

As for HTS and ships, we don’t know since they probably don’t have any experienced sailors in their ranks, but then again they also probably don’t have many MiG 25,29 or SU 22,24 pilots either, nor many qualified cargo plane or helicopter pilots.

From the Israeli side, they are probably looking at this from a risk mitigation perspective; a once in a lifetime shot at neutralizing any military threat Syria may pose should the new government assume a hostile posture in the future.
Once in a lifetime is very reassuring.
 
Some takes in this thread are absolutely mental. Justifying the Israeli invasion, occupation and 350 air strikes just in the past 48 hours because it's "strategic". Some obvious hypocrisy there.
 
I cannot believe some people here are actually defending Israel destroying Syria's military infrastructure.

Wait untill you read them defending its occupation of an area two times the size of Gaza as "strategic" and "it's only rocks".
 
Some takes in this thread are absolutely mental. Justifying the Israeli invasion, occupation and 350 air strikes just in the past 48 hours because it's "strategic". Some obvious hypocrisy there.
It’s less strategic than simply because they can. It feels like the end of a Godfather movie where they just whack everyone (although in this case involving 50,000 plus civilians as well as the bad guys). It sounds counterintuitive but some victories are so overwhelming that they actually provoke huge problems for the victor down the line. I wonder whether the fragile balance of Israeli society survives this brutal onslaught that has been perpetrated against its neighbours in Palestine, Lebanon and now Syria.
 
Not defending Israel at almost every turn on here would be a good start.
I'm not defending anything. I am highly critical of Israel on many/most things. I just find some semblance of balance and realism is required or you end up like so many in this thread with utter and complete one eyed silliness that advance a grown up discussion by approximately zero.
I honestly don’t understand how to respond to this kind of argument. Was it in Israeli hands before? Are their soldiers now in that region, having previously not been? When is a movement of soldiers into an area where they previously weren’t into another nation not an invasion? When it’s the wests darling of course.
FFS. The Golan Heights themselves was lost over 50 years ago. Moving into the sliver of land, the currently defined buffer zone was entirely logical. No country in the world would want that buffer zone to fall into the hands of whatever follows the Assad regime, as it may well end up being another Taliban or worse. If it doesn't then you may well see the UN taking over the buffer zone (although knowing Israel they will make a way to keep Mount Hermon as it vastly improves Israel's ability to protect from drone and missile attacks from Hezbolah and Iran. And of course how long Israel keep Netenyahu may affect the speed of what happens. But characterising this as aggressive expansionism is just silly. If they invade and keep more Syrian territory, especially for no reason, then that could be called expansionism. Seems odd that has to be stated.
If you’ve become a Raoul type realpolitik might is right proponent, then at least be upfront about it like he is.
Being neither naive, religious motivated, nor part of a 6th form debating club you can't totally ignore realpolitik when that is the context in which everything is happening. Otherwise, all you will end up is being a parody of Python's People's Front of Judea demanding that "We're giving Pilate two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Roman Imperialist State".
Generally taking other countries’ lands, regardless of current levels of strength, generally doesn’t lead itself to the other group loving peacefully with its neighbour. I imagine the Irish state and the paramilitaries would have had a much harder time of it if the British army was pushing into RoI to create buffer zones for itself and weed out lines of communication.
I don't think that you know your history of Ireland very well. However, that aside, the main thing that you are missing is that in the end Realpolitik and both (all) sides coming to the negotiation table had to occur before anything changed.
 
Some of the comments on the events in Syria strike me as something like this:

A family is being held hostage by a monstrous criminal for 50 years. The last 13 years of which he has enlisted the help of his cronies and friends to kill off some of the family members and terrorize them in unspeakable ways.

Upon suddenly being freed from the violence and terror of this gang, those who have never experienced a day of it in their lives have taken to criticizing the family for not having thought through whether they should accept that freedom because some of those that freed them might have evil intentions.

Moreover, they are criticizing them because even if they do have good intentions, the outcome might end up being worse, because there is another larger gang nearby that might inflict similar if not worse torment...

So the reasoning is... you should have just accepted the violence, torment, and terror of the first group and been fine with it. While the entire family is elated for being able to experience freedom from oppression and torment, many of those who have not faced it are upset because the family has hope for the future.
 
Some of the comments on the events in Syria strike me as something like this:

A family is being held hostage by a monstrous criminal for 50 years. The last 13 years of which he has enlisted the help of his cronies and friends to kill off some of the family members and terrorize them in unspeakable ways.

Upon suddenly being freed from the violence and terror of this gang, those who have never experienced a day of it in their lives have taken to criticizing the family for not having thought through whether they should accept that freedom because some of those that freed them might have evil intentions.

Moreover, they are criticizing them because even if they do have good intentions, the outcome might end up being worse, because there is another larger gang nearby that might inflict similar if not worse torment...

So the reasoning is... you should have just accepted the violence, torment, and terror of the first group and been fine with it. While the entire family is elated for being able to experience freedom from oppression and torment, many of those who have not faced it are upset because the family has hope for the future.

it is simpler than that. everybody understands the strategic argument. (and it would apply to turkey in syria, as well as most of israel's neighbuors if they ever dismembered israel)
but the fact that it is taken as enough justification for israel's actions, suggests a deeper identification with that state and its people than its neighbours.
 
it is simpler than that. everybody understands the strategic argument. (and it would apply to turkey in syria, as well as most of israel's neighbuors if they ever dismembered israel)
but the fact that it is taken as enough justification for israel's actions, suggests a deeper identification with that state and its people than its neighbours.

Maybe generally, but unless I've missed something there are currently two people defending what Israel is doing, and in case of Wibble it's a case of [initial belief] = [current belief]. What actually happens is never relevant, he'll act like this no matter the subject. Of course it's quite telling what the initial belief is, depending on the subject.
 
Expansionist is Putin in Ukraine, characterising Israel as being expansionist for taking (hopefully) temporary control of the buffer zone abandoned by Syrian troops is being disingenuous, reading a dictionary definition and thinking that proves some great truth irrespective of the context.

You're not that naïve.

In 2014 Russia were talking about buffer zones in Ukraine
 
You're not that naïve.

In 2014 Russia were talking about buffer zones in Ukraine
And nobody believed them because they openly stated that they wanted Ukraine back and promptly invaded and then repeated it again more recently. So what has that got to do with Israel moving into the official buffer zone between The Golan heights and Syria when they were abandoned by Syrian Troops?

Hint: Nothing.

By your logic my dog is a lion because they both have paws.
 
Last edited:
Maybe generally, but unless I've missed something there are currently two people defending what Israel is doing, and in case of Wibble it's a case of [initial belief] = [current belief]. What actually happens is never relevant, he'll act like this no matter the subject. Of course it's quite telling what the initial belief is, depending on the subject.
Don't you start being silly. It is nothing about internal belief but about the current most likely explanation. You lot probably think Israel are responsible for ingrowing toenails and the JFK assassination because apparently their actual epic cuntery isn't enough for you. Of course the most obvious and rational explanation may not be true and/or things can change - it is the Middle East after all. But currently nobody sensible thinks Israel has designs on invading and holding large swathes of Syria, they merely don't want Islamist extremists to be able to infiltrate the buffer zone or the Golan Heights. Obviously.
 
I'm not defending anything. I am highly critical of Israel on many/most things. I just find some semblance of balance and realism is required or you end up like so many in this thread with utter and complete one eyed silliness that advance a grown up discussion by approximately zero.

FFS. The Golan Heights themselves was lost over 50 years ago. Moving into the sliver of land, the currently defined buffer zone was entirely logical. No country in the world would want that buffer zone to fall into the hands of whatever follows the Assad regime, as it may well end up being another Taliban or worse. If it doesn't then you may well see the UN taking over the buffer zone (although knowing Israel they will make a way to keep Mount Hermon as it vastly improves Israel's ability to protect from drone and missile attacks from Hezbolah and Iran. And of course how long Israel keep Netenyahu may affect the speed of what happens. But characterising this as aggressive expansionism is just silly. If they invade and keep more Syrian territory, especially for no reason, then that could be called expansionism. Seems odd that has to be stated.

Being neither naive, religious motivated, nor part of a 6th form debating club you can't totally ignore realpolitik when that is the context in which everything is happening. Otherwise, all you will end up is being a parody of Python's People's Front of Judea demanding that "We're giving Pilate two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Roman Imperialist State".

I don't think that you know your history of Ireland very well. However, that aside, the main thing that you are missing is that in the end Realpolitik and both (all) sides coming to the negotiation table had to occur before anything changed.

You don’t advance any conversation on this topic and know far less about the area than you think.

Seems odd that an army of one nation entering the land of another nation , for whatever reason, even if they don’t intend to stay, can be defended by you (as is usually your stance and has been with Israel for the last year consistently on here) as not an invasion.

I don’t ignore realpolitik at all. My point is that Raoul speaks purely in realpolitik terms, even if he himself sees that something is wrong (which, true to form for him, is exactly what he did further io this page). You have sought to justify this, downplay it and present the entire thing as completely logical.

Also I had to laugh at your first sentence. I’m not defending anything. As you write post after post defending Israel, saying how logical everything they’re doing is :lol:.
 
Don't you start being silly. It is nothing about internal belief but about the current most likely explanation. You lot probably think Israel are responsible for ingrowing toenails and the JFK assassination because apparently their actual epic cuntery isn't enough for you. Of course the most obvious and rational explanation may not be true and/or things can change - it is the Middle East after all. But currently nobody sensible thinks Israel has designs on invading and holding large swathes of Syria, they merely don't want Islamist extremists to be able to infiltrate the buffer zone or the Golan Heights. Obviously.

Yeah and 9/11 and the Armenian genocide and Covid and the 2008 banking crisis and the century of humiliation and the fall of the Roman Empire.

And we all sleep with copies of mein kampf under our pillows right?
 
You don’t advance any conversation on this topic and know far less about the area than you think.

Seems odd that an army of one nation entering the land of another nation , for whatever reason, even if they don’t intend to stay, can be defended by you (as is usually your stance and has been with Israel for the last year consistently on here) as not an invasion.

I don’t ignore realpolitik at all. My point is that Raoul speaks purely in realpolitik terms, even if he himself sees that something is wrong (which, true to form for him, is exactly what he did further io this page). You have sought to justify this, downplay it and present the entire thing as completely logical.
So your solution would be to let whoever ends up controlling that part of Syria to take control of the buffer zone abandoned by Syrian forces? No matter who that ends up being? Given that many groups have AQ and IS roots and history?

And FFS it is logical and seems to be the current situation. Why not stick to criticising Israel for things they are actually doing that deserve condemnation and potential have a solution (if we are very lucky)? It isn't like there is a shortage of things to criticise.
 
Yeah and 9/11 and the Armenian genocide and Covid and the 2008 banking crisis and the century of humiliation and the fall of the Roman Empire.

And we all sleep with copies of mein kampf under our pillows right?
What are you on about?
 
And nobody believed them because they openly stated that they wanted Ukraine back. So what has that got to do with Israel moving into the official buffre zone between The Golan heights and Syria when they were abandoned by Syrian Troops?

Hint: Nothing.
Nobody believed it for the same reasons nobody believes Israel.

If a buffer zone between two states is occupied by one of those states then it's no longer a buffer zone.

And Israel can feck off falling back on any UN mandate for justification of anything given their recent actions.
 
What are you on about?

You lot probably think Israel are responsible for ingrowing toenails and the JFK assassination because apparently their actual epic cuntery isn't enough for you.
 
Nobody believed it for the same reasons nobody believes Israel.

If a buffer zone between two states is occupied by one of those states then it's no longer a buffer zone.

And Israel can feck off falling back on any UN mandate for justification of anything given their recent actions.
You hate Israel. We get it. But what logic or facts make you in any way suspect they want to Invade and hold Syrian territory rather than just prevent potentially hostile forces occupying the buffer zone abandoned by the Syrian Military? Israel are cnuts so must be about to do something that is possible that I have thought of isn't a logical or factual reason BTW. They are cnuts but they are predictable cnuts and invading Syria proper isn't in their interests (yes I get the status of the Golan Heights and buffer zone but you know what we are talking about). If they ever get attacked from that direction that might change but since that is unlikely, especially since they took over the positions in the buffer zone after the Syrian Troops abandoned their posts.
 
You lot probably think Israel are responsible for ingrowing toenails and the JFK assassination because apparently their actual epic cuntery isn't enough for you.
You are making even less sense than usual. What I said was very obvious i.e. you would blame Israel for anything and everything, even unconnected and irrelevant things. What you said was gibberish.
 
You are making even less sense than usual. What I said was very obvious i.e. you would blame Israel for anything and everything, even unconnected and irrelevant things. What you said was gibberish.
He's literally directing your own hyperbolic nonsense back to you. You really should back off but you're insistent on doubling down with posters who have been far more reasonable with your posts than they deserve.
 
You hate Israel. We get it. But what logic or facts make you in any way suspect they want to Invade and hold Syrian territory rather than just prevent potentially hostile forces occupying the buffer zone abandoned by the Syrian Military? Israel are cnuts so must be about to do something that is possible that I have thought of isn't a logical or factual reason BTW. They are cnuts but they are predictable cnuts and invading Syria proper isn't in their interests (yes I get the status of the Golan Heights and buffer zone but you know what we are talking about). If they ever get attacked from that direction that might change but since that is unlikely, especially since they took over the positions in the buffer zone after the Syrian Troops abandoned their posts.

I might be being silly here but Syrian troops were presumably not in the buffer zone whereas UN troops were. What has Syrian troops downing tools got to do with the buffer zone at that point?
 
You are making even less sense than usual. What I said was very obvious i.e. you would blame Israel for anything and everything, even unconnected and irrelevant things. What you said was gibberish.

The conversation has been entirely about Israel’s actions in Syria.

You then mention that ‘you lot’ believe Israel killed JFK and cause ingrown toenails???

There’s a very clear undercurrent to the reason you’re saying that, why not just be upfront about it?
 
Last edited:
You hate Israel. We get it. But what logic or facts make you in any way suspect they want to Invade and hold Syrian territory rather than just prevent potentially hostile forces occupying the buffer zone abandoned by the Syrian Military? Israel are cnuts so must be about to do something that is possible that I have thought of isn't a logical or factual reason BTW. They are cnuts but they are predictable cnuts and invading Syria proper isn't in their interests (yes I get the status of the Golan Heights and buffer zone but you know what we are talking about). If they ever get attacked from that direction that might change but since that is unlikely, especially since they took over the positions in the buffer zone after the Syrian Troops abandoned their posts.
I don't hate Israel at all, but I despise Netanyahu and the cabal of ethno-fascist cnuts he's got in bed with. That's irrelevant to the point anyway.

What Israel are doing is no different from what Russia have been doing and continue to do. Both are horrendous actions that need to be opposed.
 
So your solution would be to let whoever ends up controlling that part of Syria to take control of the buffer zone abandoned by Syrian forces? No matter who that ends up being? Given that many groups have AQ and IS roots and history?

And FFS it is logical and seems to be the current situation. Why not stick to criticising Israel for things they are actually doing that deserve condemnation and potential have a solution (if we are very lucky)? It isn't like there is a shortage of things to criticise.

My solution is to let Syrians control Syrian land. This seems a particularly difficult concept for you.

The current situation seems to be that Russia have taken over vast swathes of Ukrainian territory and aren’t giving it back. I don’t think Ukraine are ever getting that land back, especially with the orange buffoon back in power. Yet I will criticise Russia and will continue to criticise Russia, even if trump pushes through a peace deal.

It’s also logical and seems to be the current situation that Turkey are funding groups in northern Syria to attack Kurdish armed groups, as well as striking them themselves. From a realpolitik view, that makes sense from Turkeys perspective. Turkey are not going to change that any time soon and the one thing the Turkish political spectrum seems unified on is that a Kurdish autonomous region on their borders which may help the PKK is an unacceptable threat. Yet I will criticise Turkey for it.

It’s logical from an Israeli perspective to cause a minimum ethnic cleansing from northern Gaza and perhaps the entirety of Gaza. Clear the land, settle it, leaving no prospect of attacks from Palestinians at all. I have no power to stop this. Yet I will continue to criticise Israel for this.

It was logical for the gulf monarchies to fund reactionary forces post revolutions across the region to disrupt any real foundation of democracy in those countries. They did not want examples of democracy in the region, nor potentially empowered Islamist groups within the political system. I have no power to stop this. Yet I will continue to criticise those countries.

Etc etc.

There’s a difference like I said between even how Raoul posts (yeah it was wrong to do it but what you gonna do, they saw a once in a generation opportunity and nobody can stop them ) to what you do (I don’t defend Israel’s actions. But here are 3 defences of it. And this was logical and always justified in self defence. And they may not give back mount hermon. But I guess also logical. Logical logical.)
 
in case of Wibble it's a case of [initial belief] = [current belief]. What actually happens is never relevant, he'll act like this no matter the subject. Of course it's quite telling what the initial belief is, depending on the subject.
Bingo. It's spineless behaviour.
 
There are 3 or 4 people in this thread trying desperately to ensure there are no dissenting views to the ones they hold. It's absurd gatekeeping behaviour.
 
I might be being silly here but Syrian troops were presumably not in the buffer zone whereas UN troops were. What has Syrian troops downing tools got to do with the buffer zone at that point?

Shhh with that possibly rational explanantion!
 
There are 3 or 4 people in this thread trying desperately to ensure there are no dissenting views to the ones they hold. It's absurd gatekeeping behaviour.
It's not is it though, if posters are going to make egregious claims that Israel aren't interested in occupying further territory, then those are going to be called out for obvious reasons.

The only 'gatekeeping' I've seen is this bizarre attempt to shut down any attempt of comparing Israel's regional maneuvers to that of Putin, or some whataboutery deflections by referencing the conduct of powers like Turkey. The difference is most of us are willing to equally condemn all of those aforementioned parties instead of deploying some serious mental gymnastics to give Israel the benefit of the doubt for whatever reason.
 
It's not is it though, if posters are going to make egregious claims that Israel aren't interested in occupying further territory, then those are going to be called out for obvious reasons.

The only 'gatekeeping' I've seen is this bizarre attempt to shut down any attempt of comparing Israel's regional maneuvers to that of Putin, or some whataboutery deflections by referencing the conduct of powers like Turkey. The difference is most of us are willing to equally condemn all of those aforementioned parties instead of deploying some serious mental gymnastics to give Israel the benefit of the doubt for whatever reason.

I think most people can see the obvious difference. Go back and look at the adjectives that have been used to describe people who disagree with you. It’s gate keeping.