Israel's justification for attack on Syria

[Darranar]

ISRAEL may have taken the war of words between the US and Damascus as a green light for its attack on Syrian soil, analysts said yesterday.

Israeli officials described yesterday’s air raid, barely ten miles outside the Syrian capital, as a warning shot meant to end Syrian support for terrorists, fired with "no intention of escalation".

Washington, meanwhile, has repeatedly blamed Syria for allowing "Arabs" and "foreigners" to cross its border to attack American troops, hinting at the possible threat of sanctions.

At the same time, it has joined Israel in demanding that Syria end its backing for Palestinian militants.

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=1105652003
*************************************
A very interesting article.

[bemildred]

1. I'm starting to think this thing is even more feeble

than it appears on it face.

[Darranar]

4. If the claims about terrorism...

are junk, why did the Israelis attack? I'm starting to think that it was a show to indicate that they are doing something worthwhile, but hwat are your thoughts?

[bemildred]

7. I think maybe Sharon is doing the US a favor,

"warning" Syria about support for the Iraqi resistance.
Sharon just got the green light for his wall and new
settlement housing right? So this is the price he paid.
A warning that doesn't put the US in the bad cop role
and more importantly in the impotent whiner role. Of course
it works in other ways too, but that explains why the risky
and bizarre one shot at Syria rather than the usual "strike"
at some Palestinian terrorist target.

All that hinges on the idea that the US thinks Syria is
providing important help to the Iraqi resistance and wants
it to stop badly.

Pure speculation, of course.

[Darranar]

9. I think that that's part of it...

but I think that this was also done to show a "new" approach.

Israelis know that the current approach isn't working. The Left is advocating peace. The Far Right is advocating expulsion of Arafat and a number of other extreme measures. Sharon is trying to cozy up to the Far Right, but in the end he's sleazy enough to ignore idealogy and instead go a different way then his comrades on the Right. So, in order to avoid implementing those extreme measures or working towards peace, he's attacking Syria.

[bemildred]

10. Yeah, that's another thought.

After three years the usual shit is losing political traction.

[Jackie97]

12. A show?

That would be disgusting since real people probably got hurt in that.

[Darranar]

13. Well...

A huge number of Israel's actions are disgusting. It would be far from the first time...

[Fight_n_back]

16. I swear

every time I try to give you guys the benefit of the doubt...

If Yassir Arafat says he has nothing to do with terrorism (all of a sudden) you trust him implicitly but if Israel says ANYTHING then it must be a front for some other, much more evil plan.

There is REAL stuff that Israel is doing that can be questioned why go into the land of the paranoid?

[Equinox]

22. I think you are paranoid....

You seem to infer a lot of things out of posts.

[Darranar]

23. What?

I don't trust Yasser Arafat or Hamas. Nor do i trust the IDF. Since no legitimate third party has given evidence that he is indeed a terrorist, I must assume that he is not (innocent until proven guilty.)

I don't trust anyone in this conflict. I don't know why I should.

[loudnclear]

2. This attack on Syria has been planned for a long time

Israel won't be through until it has attacked every Arab nation. Just like 67 abd 74, israel attacks and blames it on the Arabs. It's time for the rest of the world to stand up to the biggest terrorist nation in the ME and its sponsor, the US.

[Darranar]

3. Uh...

Let me give you just a tiny test of your knowledge of the Middle east...

1. Was there a major war in 1974 between Israel and the Arabs?

2. Who attacked first in the Yom Kippur War?

[papau]

5. Should Syria in any way respond - the US helps Israel do a regime chg

Indeed that goes for any country - it appears Bush is serious about "are you with us - or against us" and Syria'a game playing with terrorist offices closed for a week was not found to be amusing in the Whitehouse.

State seems so out of the loop - the UN will no doubt condemn Israel - but the game is not being played at the UN this week.

I think we may have seen the start of the Bush plan to avoid impeachment over Iraq lies and CIA outing for political effect treason.

[Darranar]

6. I fear that you are right.

n/t

[bemildred]

8. Stupidity overrules everything, but

I think you are underestimating the ugliness of what
will happen if Syria is attacked. The have ballistic missiles
and stuff to put on top of them, and their military is generally
rated as modern and professional. The US cannot handle the
situation in Iraq, let alone pick any more fights.

[beanball]

11. Sharon the bully

and his protector the U.S.,when are we going to wake up and realize that we are backing another bullyboy?

[Scurrilous]

14. Why attack Syria?

A suicide bomber leaves Jenin, travels to Haifa, where she blows herself up inside a restaurant, killing and wounding scores of innocent civilians.

In response, Israeli warplanes then attack terrorist 'training bases' deep inside Syria.

I really don't see how bombing 'training camps' in Syria deters Palestinian terrorists inside the Occupied Territories from attacking Israeli civilians.

It seems to me that this attack was nothing more than deliberate provocation of Syria dressed-up as 'anti-terrorism.'

[Fight_n_back]

15. And that is why

you work at a Blockbuster video or Starbucks while adults make decisions on what their nations militaries do.

Just because Bush is capricious doesn't mean everyone in the world is.

[Scurrilous]

17. This attack on Syria.....

....was the height of capriciousness on the part of the Israeli government. An impulsive unwarranted attack on a sovereign nation is hardly the work of an adult mind. Israel needs new decision makers. Fast.

[Fight_n_back]

18. One has nothing to do with the other

they attacked a nation that they are currently at war with, a nation that is fighting a proxy war staged in Lebanon and the West Bank and a nation that you ypurself would consider a pariah if they weren't an enemy of Israel.

They need new leadership for a host of other reasons.

[Scurrilous]

19. Syria a pariah nation?

Says who? Bush? He has zero crediblity. If Syria is such a pariah, then why did Poppy Bush ask them to join our coalition during the first Iraq war. Syria was in Lebanon then. Syria is in Lebanon now. What has occured to change their status from erstwhile ally fighting alongside US troops in Kuwait to pariah?

Just because a collection of warmongering nutcases inside the Bush administration have declared Syria a pariah and placed them on their hit-list doesn't justify attacking them. By us or our Israeli proxy.

[bluesoul]

20. Amazing

I am hearing the same "arguments" regarding Palestinians, Syrians and Arabs in general that I hear on sites like FR. Isn't that amazing, the similarity?

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Why?

Because Syria was the over-the-top addition. Adding Syria to the original Gulf coalition made it clear that no rational group supported Hussein. Syria was vastly smarter than Arafat. They saw the writing on the wall and wanted to be on the winning side for post-war reality. Chairman Idiot couldn't see that far.

[Fozzledick]

24. Attacking the roots of the problem

The money, weapons, and strategic direction for the terrorist intifada come from the Arab aggressor states. The Palestinians who die as a result are "useful idiots" manipulated by the Syrian and Iranian intelligence services. What I don't understand is why so many here support their genicidal aggression?:shrug:

[bluesoul]

25. Hmm

The same could be asked about those supporting Sharon, Israeli policy of occupation, destruction, daily raids, illegal settlements etc...Two way street

[Fozzledick]

27. What don't you understand about self-defense?

[bluesoul]

28. Well

By your logic what the Palestians are doing is self-defense, even by targeting civilians to scare the public and force changes since militarily they cannot do it. One could then see it that way as well. We have a circle of violence that does not end. You see anything that Israel does as self-defense. Palestinians might see the suicide attacks as self-defense. Two way street.....

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Crimes

By any definition suicide bombing is a horrendous crime.

[Fozzledick]

30. Terrorist bombings of innocent civilians is not self defence

And failure to achive conquest by open military assault is not a justification for terrorism.

Your condemnation of the Israeli response against genicidal aggression reminds me of the old French saying: "That animal is evil - if you attack it, it will defend itself".

[bluesoul]

31. Oh...

You're clearly one-sided any do not see the other side and their suffering. It's hard debating with people like you, I am sorry.

[Fozzledick]

33. So honesty is one -sided?

It's not that I don't see the suffering of the Palestinians, it's that I clearly see how it's a direct result of the decisions of their own leaders and the confrontation states who back them to use them as expendable pawns in their 50 year war to destroy the state of Israel and exterminate or drive out it's population.

I think your difficulty in debating has more to do with your claim that self-defence is no different than terrorism.:eyes:

[tinnypriv]

26. The Israeli justification is irrelevant

The aim of the raid is more important.

IMO, I think that aim was to establish a "new norm" in Middle East regional affairs and IDF operating procedure.

Basically Israel is following the model of the US in Iraq and adopting word for word the Bush National Security Strategy.

Now that they've established that they have the "right" to strike at Syria (or at the very least the ability to do so without fear of censure), they'll be able to rachet up their "retaliation" in the event of further suicide attacks.

This strike probably was targetted at nothing important or populated for that very reason. The vulgar propaganda videos circulating to justify it are only designed to deflect any censure or US pressure, which might drag them back from this course they've chosen.

The next attack will be at something more important.

As will the next one, and the next one.... :eyes:

[bemildred]

32. An interesting thought.

I dunno if I buy it completely, for various reasons,
e.g. it's not that new except that they hit Syria for
the first time in a while, but it certainly fits well.

OTOH, I can think of reasons to support it too. A couple
more of these attacks and I'd have to buy in. At a minimum one
can say they seem to be intent on taking things up a notch,
and that sure sounds like Sharon, never back off.

[tinnypriv]

35. "A couple more of these attacks and I'd have to buy in"

(from Ma'ariv, 7 Oct)

[Darranar]

36. That could be rhetoric...

Though I doubt it. I think it's becoming clear to al parties involved that this hasn't accomplished much of worth; Sharon, in order to tap all the possible political gains from this, will probably launch another attack sooner or later.

Nothing to the scale of the Lebanon invasion, though.

[tinnypriv]

37. You're assuming the Syrians won't respond

Don't forget, they have domestic political considerations too. I doubt their security establishment (or population) will just sit by and let their country get bombed.

I could be wrong on that though, since I don't know much about Syria.

Don't forget, this raid has accomplished something of very high value: Israel has in one fell swoop established the "right" to attack Syria in flagrant violation of the UN charter.

The historical analog is the bombing of Tunis. Same justification (terrorists hiding there), same method (air force), but a different result. The UN/SC overwhelmningly condemned it as an act of "wanton aggression" (or words to that effect).

This time around, the UN says squat.

Another gain is likely a severing of intelligence sharing ties between Syria and the United States, further pushing Syria into the "enemy" camp. That is also in the interests of Israel.

A final gain is enhanced credibility. Very useful to have in a world run by force.

All in all, not a bad days work for little loss or trouble suffered.

I do agree that it is unlikely Israel is planning an invasion of Syria. Still, the winds are blowing more in that direction than away from it.

[Darranar]

38. Syria won't respond...

except with increased aid to Hizbollah, perhaps.

They can't face the IAF by air, and they know that they're screwed politically as well as militarily if they try anything else.

Your point about this strike establishing (or perhaps re-establishing) a "right" of Israeli retaliation is a good one, but I don't think that it matters much to the greater population of Israel. They are the ones Sharon is trying to appease with this, IMO. A show of defiance to the international community is useful, but it seems a secondary motivation here.

Syria is firmly in the "enemy" camp already; I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it does seem to me that the US and Israel are working in concert here; at the very least, Israel is almost certainly acting with the approval of the US.

[tinnypriv]

39. Depends what you mean by "the US"

Certainly a lot of the White House is in favour of what Israel is doing. I'm not sure a lot of the people at State or CIA are.

See Sy Hersh's article in the New Yorker about Syrian-US intelligence co-operation for more background.

As for what the population of Israel cares about, Sharon doesn't give a damn. He's essentially running a military base and the people on it are secondary.

[Darranar]

40. US = Bush Administration...

in particular the Defense Department.

Sharon has to consider the people. He rules in a democracy that isn't going to cease to be one anytime soon. If he completely alienates himself from the population, he will lose power.

[bemildred]

41. Mostly not convinced about the new norm part.

Looks a lot like the old norm, although they are stepping
over some unspoken boundaries.

Somewhat the same idea was advanced WRT the US going into
Afghanistan and Iraq. Otherwise, I have no argument,
it sure looks like they are looking for a fight.

It is clear that a rather vigorous attempt to scare the bejeezus
out of Little Assad is in progress for some reason. I usually
take loud aggressive behavior as a sign of weakness, but it could
be misdirection or a psyop or ...

[sushi]

34. How can the Israelis take this

Their government is forever ignoring or threatening or attacking other people and countries. I wonder how many of them are on valium.