As bad as the palestinians may have it, what Assad’s done to the Syrians in the last couple years has been much worse. Not sure if they’re considered “family” though …
The Israelis announced their position in 1996 in a paper sponsed by Netanyahu and written by many US neo-cons titled ‘A Clean Break - A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’, from wiki -
‘The report explained a new approach to solving Israel’s security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on “Western values”. It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting their possession of “weapons of mass destruction”.’
US policy is some form of transition from Assad to something better.
The CW deal may be a first step in that direction. it’s possible Putin wants to transition Assad out after getting the CW out. Think abou how dangerous Assad could be with 1000 tons of CW at his disposal. Russia will need an alliances with whatever replaces Assyad and respect for whatever port deal that now exists. It will take a partnership involving Turkey (NATO member) and Israel with Russia and the USA to implement a transition that works for all and mostly for the ethnic minorities in Syria.
Perhaps Israel also sent a signal last week that forced Assad and Putin to come to terms that the CW had to be removed only under Assad’s control over the next 18 months, and that is what helped bring Putin forward last week with perhaps the first step in a diplomatic solution.
What evidence is there that Putin might want Assad out? The shipments of weapons to his forces? The ‘diplomacy’ to avert strikes against his forces?
Assad with chemical weapons is a danger mainly to Syrians. The same Syrians Putin is helping him kill by other means.
Actually, “Cousins” is a very common Israeli euphemism for Arabs. People use it all the time.
That reminds me how Serbs used to call Bosnians and Croats “brothers” but somehow they were really good at distinguishing who’s who when the time came to ethnically clean an area or to take away one’s land or to just kill. We, on the other hand, never called them “brothers”.
I’m guessing it must feel good to be on the “other” side of the euphemism.
Well, the seed of Al Q – as an idea & practical force to reckon with – was a US tactical move under overall strategy of Cold War when they decided to prop a certain fraction of multi-layered Afghanistan resistance to Russian invasion and occupation.
As a tactical move, it worked like a charm because these guys while crazy on religion did fight like there’s no tomorrow and, to a significant degree, contributed to the ultimate Russian defeat and retreat from Afghanistan. Through that major world event, Al Q comes to fruition – not only as an organization but more like an idea that you can pull out of a drawer, when needed.
Not entirely sure how but at one point – as is the case with imperial powers propping groups of suspect intentions and then throwing them under the bus when their role no longer fits the narrative – there was a fallout between US and Bin Laden’s Al Q fraction and the new fight was on. I’m not entirely convinced of their purported strength so I’d refer to that more as a nuisance than a real threat but US is great at overselling the actual situation – there’s a great bit by Bill Hicks about talking heads selling the war (or, as we simply say, dealing in propaganda) before 1st Gulf War with Iraq when “Elite Revolutionary Guard” were 10 feet tall and shitting bullets to … just Iraqi soldiers who were, if not dying in scores, fleeing in scores. But, I digress…
Similar strategy was employed by Israel when dealing with (for Middle East context) while corrupt, still a secular Fatah movement that was, as the time went on, gaining some ground and almost got the deal done. Well, Israel won’t have any of that because there’s so much land to stea… khm… change hands. The strategy was to find small and insignificant religious fraction that will be pitted against Fatah and thus create a friction which, over time, as we all know, led to a total destruction of any resemblance of structure within Palestinian society. And, let’s not forget, in the context of Russian fading significance as a global counter-force a new radicalized religion-based multi-country movement becomes enemy de jour and Palestinians, for the fact that they are mostly Muslim, they find it difficult to get any recognition in the World (I mean, Western world, the one that matters) now that Hamas full Audi R8 on the P-I conflict - from 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds.
Anyhow, point being, while no doubt there are elements of radical forces in every society, in the Middle East, without external funding and support, none of those would materialize into anything significant.
TL;DR section:
Which brings me to your question – I hope we can agree that both US and Israel are doing ANYTHING possible in their almost infinite supply of ideas, willingness and funding – to influence outcomes of any event in the Middle East.
The only thing for a debate is to what end?
As I mentioned in other places, I believe, on the basis of a decade of evidence so far, the end result is a total destruction of society for many Middle East countries. As for US and Israel, there’s no strategy of, at one point, resolving all of this in the manner Eastern Europe got resolved.
No, for US and Israel, this is the way of life, the pursuit of happiness through misery of others.
Not sure how your cite qualifies as “finally” picking a side, given the key quote:
So, this is news?
For Dope, it is :o
I did not say Putin wanted Assad ‘out’ .
You responded to this:
“Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW -It’s possible Putin wants to transition Assad out after getting the CW out.”
That is highly possible because Putin had said he backed the Annan plan to put together a political transition government in place. See Below:
The headline for the above is:
Putin to back Annan peace plan for Syria
Jul 17, 2012 by Paul Iddon
A few months before the start of the Lebanese Civil War which would last for decades, Chomsky gave speeches insisting that Israel should become a “bi-national democracy” modeled after Lebanon because in Lebanon “Muslims and Christians in Lebanon live in peace and harmony”.
Does he strike you as a terribly reliable source when it comes to the Middle East?
I would say such claims don’t inspire much confidence in his understanding of or ability to analyze the Middle East.
Presumably you disagree so perhaps you can explain why I’m wrong to be skeptical.
Thank you in advance for your response.
“Be careful what you wish for…in case your wishes should come true”!
Who knows what would follow Assad? It is not just him-its the Army Air Force, and the Baath party-these people lose big if he topples.
I can see Syria breaking up, post Assad-there is no reason for the various sects ever to trust eachother. Just like Yugoslavia-minus a strong dictator, no reason for it to stay together.