The Syrian troops were supposed to enforce the border security around the buffer zone on the Syrian side. They have now abandoned those positions, and as a result the rebels attacked and invaded the UN held buffer zone on Saturday. Following that attack and the change in the nature of the government and security within Syria, Israel expanded their presence beyond the existing buffer zone. It is meant to be temporary until a new Syrian government is formed and affirms the border security agreements, personally I think it will be only temporary but we'll see.
Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to celebrate rare back-to-back victories for Manchester United! They analyse the late win in the Europa League vs. Rangers and then try and find things to analyse in a pretty dour game vs. Fulham. They also chat about the latest Marcus Rashford news, and look at the latest transfer news.
The Syrian troops were supposed to enforce the border security around the buffer zone on the Syrian side. They have now abandoned those positions, and as a result the rebels attacked and invaded the UN held buffer zone on Saturday. Following that attack and the change in the nature of the government and security within Syria, Israel expanded their presence beyond the existing buffer zone. It is meant to be temporary until a new Syrian government is formed and affirms the border security agreements, personally I think it will be only temporary but we'll see.
This is exactly my view. I think they've no interest in holding that land permanently. But as you say, we shall see.
Yes, they just did it in Syria.
Is that part of the border agreement though that the buffer zone must be protected by troops on both sides? Did the UN peacekeepers ask/want the Israelis to move in?
Whatever the agreement is, it does not include ethnic cleansing of Syrian villages. If you had the ability to follow the news in arabic they ordered the evacuation of 7 villages in Qunaytara province. Just today ordered the evacuation of two more villages and the people are leaving their homes they lived in for centuries by force. Anyone justifies this is just a hypocrite.
Do you think if you spoke to Egyptians and Jordanians they would agree that an attack is imminent, or likely? I'm just very surprised as they have had decades long peace deals, 30 years in Jordan's case and 45 years in Egypt's case. I wouldn't want to accuse you of anything, but I'd very much hope you are not simply inventing a threat to then try to claim equivalence.
For the first part, yes, it was the responsibility of each side to ensure security of their part of that area. The second part, no, absolutely not. The IDF helped with repelling the attack which I'm sure was appreciated, but not the actual expansion which according to UN is a violation of the border agreement. There is an argument for both sides here I think - but Israels actions clearly don't contribute to peace and stability in that area, to be clear.
This is an American previously held by some of the Assad's security groups,... The reporter is still missing.
I am not justifying any war crimes, I am only adding context to counter the point that this is an expansionist land grab similar to Russias invasion of Ukraine. It is Israel taking (overly aggressive) action against a security threat, and they are being rightfully pressured by the international community to withdraw to avoid further escalations. And I think they will, just like they are withdrawing from Lebanon (where similar comments by Israel ministers were made about Lebanon being rightful Israel territory), after some time of non-aggression or reaffirming the border agreements with HTS/Jolani/new Syrian government.
A good discussion on the sandbox that is Syria. I'm not a Syrian but my parents met each other in that country so I hold it dear.
I would have thought that spineless behaviour would be to give in to or ignore the muddle mindset simplicity that is demanded by a number of posters who wouldn't recognise nuance or context if they introduced themselves, simply because they like to shout anything they think is disent from their party line (even people who are highly critical of Israel).
Ludicrously they demand that not only do people denounce Israel but they do so only in the idiotically all encompassing exact terms they find acceptable.
Imminent no, but likely, why not? The political landscape in Egypt can change thus changes the perception if Israel to them and vice versa. Syria and Israel have an agreement of ceasefire that lasted 51 years, the minute the government fell, Israel took advantage of it and now ethnically cleansing village after village.
Answer my question and be objective, why are Israel evacuating village after village in Qnaytara?
Last edited:
Wouldn't Hezbolah be the obvious answer?
And what has that got to do with Israel securing the abandoned buffer zone between The Golan Heights and Syria?
I guess we’ll have to disagree on this. We have the repeated changes in government in Egypt since Mubarak fell as evidence. I think you are creating a risk to prove a point and it just isn’t working.
I don’t know how to answer this without just repeating what I’ve said before. They are creating a security barrier, and I think they’ll leave. And I understand why they are worried. But this is all stuff I’ve said already.
There is no equivalence. I am absolutely sure that most Israelis do not really care about the Sinai. I am absolutely sure most Israelis don’t care about Amman or Damascus either.
However on your specific question. A portion of my in laws are Egyptian. I’ve spent time in Egypt, including working there. The Egyptians I know are Christian and Muslim. Different socio economic classes. Some religious, some actively Richard dawkinsesque. Etc etc. Some are still in Egypt, others have lived or continue to live across the world. Some married non Egyptians.
I know this is really difficult for some of you to grasp. Israel in the region is seen as a Russia like figure. Or USSR if Russia comparisons are going to upset you. Almost every single one of those Egyptians would fear an Israeli attack if Egyptian foreign policy was not attuned to ensure Israeli comfort. In reality this situation wouldn’t play out though because every Egyptian leader knows what would happen to the Egyptian armed forces if they erred from this.
Presumably for some people, pushing back on posters posting what they consider to be incorrect information is ‘gatekeeping’.
Presumably they’re also active in the Russia thread encouraging differing opinions and nuance, as opposed to tolerating the 2 posters who ever provide a contrarian opinion on there constantly being labelled a Russian bot and a Trumpite.
Presumably they’re also active in the Russia thread encouraging differing opinions and nuance, as opposed to tolerating the 2 posters who ever provide a contrarian opinion on there constantly being labelled a Russian bot and a Trumpite.
By ordering evacuations?
It has everything to do with Israel securing the line.. They already have a buffer zone that is called the Golan.
Rob Geist Pinfold, a scholar of international security at Durham University.
“Israel feels insecure – whether that’s true or not – and as a response to that insecurity what do they do? They take territory,” he told Al Jazeera. “We have seen that happen in Lebanon, we have seen that in Gaza, and now we’re seeing that happen in Syria.”
He added: “The irony here is that what we have in Syria is Israel basically creating a buffer zone to protect its original buffer zone which is the Golan Heights,” he added.
He also called the scale of Israeli strikes on Syria’s military infrastructure “unprecedented”.
“This shows that Israel is really changing its regional role,” he added. “Israel used to be a status-quo power … Now Israel is the revisionist power, it’s Israel that wants to change things.”
Check my response above.
Good post. And I wholeheartedly agree.
That would be correct.
The IDF going into Syria has obviously been reported, but I wouldn't say it got a huge amount of attention. It's seen as a temporary security measure and nothing more. I don't think I've seen much even of the far-right talking about it being any think more (unlike Gaza).
However, of course, no one has any idea how temporary it's supposed to be or will be and there's always a danger that once you've made the more it'll be hard to find a way back.
In other news:
-Turkey said they will continue to strike terrorists
in northern Syria
-those same Kurds have said they’ll be raising the new Syrian flag in the NE.
-the head of the IGRC have said they’re going to have to live with the new reality in Syria. Jolani has mentioned a couple of times the importance of breaking off the occupation of Iran and Hezbollah . Not exactly surprising they’re not going to be popular right now.
-Turkey said they will continue to strike terrorists
in northern Syria-those same Kurds have said they’ll be raising the new Syrian flag in the NE.
-the head of the IGRC have said they’re going to have to live with the new reality in Syria. Jolani has mentioned a couple of times the importance of breaking off the occupation of Iran and Hezbollah . Not exactly surprising they’re not going to be popular right now.
Could see Syria being partitioned even further.
May not be worst outcome imaginable, perhaps division along ethnographic religious backgrounds would lead up to less strife.
May not be worst outcome imaginable, perhaps division along ethnographic religious backgrounds would lead up to less strife.
The vast vast majority of Syrians are firmly opposed to any partition. So any attempt would need to be prompted by external forces in some way, and would inevitably reflect their competing interests, resulting in further bloodshed. Israel in particular would look forward to the creation of rump Alawite and Druze states.
Ethnic and sectarian populations in Syria are not easily divided, there are no real clear-cut lines that an official in Washington could draw on a map separating them. For example, we hear a lot about the “Alawite coast”, but cities like Tartus and Latakia are full of Sunnis, while there are very significant Alawite populations in places like Damascus and Homs. Meanwhile the areas northwest, north, and northeast of Aleppo are a heavy mix of various ethnic and sectarian populations.
So any attempt at partition would prompt mass “population exchange” (i.e. ethnic cleansing). That has already been a feature of the violence of the Syrian Civil War, so would need to be accompanied by further violence.
The world should be encouraging the many Syrians who understand that all the citizens of the country have a shared history, shared interests, and a shared destiny that transcends whatever tribal, sectarian or ethnic heritages distinguish them.
It would be the preferred outcome for all the shitty external actors.
I wouldn't agree with that.
I know little about the various conflicts or history there but know that countries like US, UK, Russia and China have had their dirty fingers in the various pots.
My question is what would happen in the region if all those countries got out of dodge and minded their own business?
My question is what would happen in the region if all those countries got out of dodge and minded their own business?
It’s utterly bizarre behaviour, somehow not recognised by the few who are doing it.
Israel would freak out and bomb everyone.
So... much of the same, just more of it.
In that scenario would their places be taken by eg Iran, Iraq or other regional players? If that’s the case I’m not sure it would be better, but obviously a Syria free of all external influence would be better in the long run.
When I say region, I mean those major countries getting out of the Middle East not just Syria.
It’s going to be fascinating to see what the Assad regime documents currently in circulation tell us once they are collected and archived properly. Right now one purported document doing the rounds seems to prove that the regime was behind one of the earliest and deadliest bombings to hit Damascus during the war, which was widely attributed to Jabhat al-Nusra at the time -
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2012/9/8/two-bombings-strike-damascus
Of course there are likely to be many frauds/forgeries produced in the coming months, hopefully the authorities can get to grips with them and organize accordingly.
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2012/9/8/two-bombings-strike-damascus
Of course there are likely to be many frauds/forgeries produced in the coming months, hopefully the authorities can get to grips with them and organize accordingly.
It probably would be better overall.
Regardless, it’s not like there isn’t a shortage of regional powers who still interfere in other countries. Iran, Turkey, UAE, Egypt, Israel etc etc.
Does anyone have any idea what the deal with Travis Timmerman is? What a strange story.
I'd be curious what people believe to be the most successful 'governed by and for ME' country, and what we can learn from that particular case.
The very, very high-level view that I get in almost all 'countries' is that they're somewhat arbitrarily determined borders encapsulating people that don't get on very well. And yes, you can blame the west for many of those borders, but I hardly blame the them for in-fighting which has been happening for literal centuries between factions, and whose sky-fairy interpretation is better.
It's kind of a wider question which depresses the hell out of my liberal world view: does homogeny generally lead to a more stable, and in many cases flourishing society? Or, how can countries properly integrate across any multi-xyz (religion, race, origin etc) and still maintain unity and collective prosperity.
As rewarding as always, Wibble, thank you.
Probably Oman? Strong economy, fairly tolerant society (by Gulf Arab standards at least anyway, rumours their last Monarch was gay), no sectarian nonsense nor do they involve themselves in the affairs of neighbouring countries. Have also maintained a strong cultural ethos, and not resorted to building ghastly skyscrapers and hotels using migrant slave labour.
Strange, that’s not the question that I asked
Seems roundabout but my best mates dad was one of his helicopter pilots. Rumours are true- parties in the desert outside Muscat.
"Printing and studying the Sefer HaTanya in the new Chabad house in the village of Hader in the liberated Hashan area (Syria).This is our entire country! Conquer and settle!!"
There's no way they're taking Damascus, it's a logistical nightmare, but a permanent golan + mountain + additional buffer loos very possible.
There's no way they're taking Damascus, it's a logistical nightmare, but a permanent golan + mountain + additional buffer loos very possible.