I don’t know if you paid any attention to the news, but Hezbollah most certainly did give plenty of provocation.
Fuck, the whole reason Assad’s regime fell at this particular moment after a decade of war is that Israel fucked up his homeboys Hezbollah, who - and this might be shocking because it doesn’t fit the standard “Israel Bad” narrative - have been propping up Assad (by massacring villages full of Syrians) this whole time.
You’re being incredibly unfair. Everyone knows that only half the bad things that happen in the middle east are Israel’s fault; the rest are America’s fault.
I’ve been paying attention to the news. How has Syria provoked Israel?
You brought up Hezbollah, so it’s on you to show specific data that Hezbollah is regrouping in Syria and getting ready to strike, or at least cite someone in the Israeli defence who is using that justification. Like I say, they’ve talked about the regime, they’ve talked about the Druze; there has been no claim that these strikes were against hezbollah current or future threats as far as I can see.
Ahmed al-Sharaa has repeatedly said he doesn’t want a conflict. What does he need to “offer”?
Also, I’ll ask again: Is there any circumstance for which you would condemn the actions of the Israeli military?
Al Shara has proud roots in alQuaeda.
I dont care what he says, I care what he does.*
What he needs to “offer” is more than nice words about avoiding conflict…he need to ACT. To act in concrete ways which prove he will not allow weapons on Syrian soil to be aimed at Israel.
Israeli air strikes are aimed at ammunition stockpiles connected to Hezbollah, and smuggling routes used by Hezbollah to move Iranian missiles through syria.
This is legitimate self defense by Israel.
If the new rulers of Syria want peace after they (both alQuaeda and Syria ) have consistently tried to destroy Israel and proudly commit genocide of all the Jews living there…, the burden of proof is on them.
Maybe they should “offer” to blow up those ammunition dumps located in their own territory, so that Israel doesnt have to.
*(A rough analogy: I have seen Amercans with roots in the Ku Klux Klan say nice things about avoiding conflict with blacks, while holding rifles. I dont care what they say, I care what they do. Destroying their rifles would be a good first step).
You mean like if he were to conduct airstrikes across Israel, and then invade and take territory, saying he needs it for a “buffer zone”. Yep, that would be the actions of a terrorist.
Again, not even the IDF is making that claim. They have spoken only about the new regime and “protecting” the druze, who say they don’t want to be “protected”.
Hid by Mod
I’ll put the same question to you then: what wouldn’t be?
I’m going to bow out of this thread because I don’t see how to continue.
But FTR I was not engaging in bad faith and I don’t believe it to be a gotcha question
Looking at it from a distance and with no particular dog in this hunt, one of the issues is that there is no “Syria” and hasn’t been for a while. Syria failed as a state long ago. The territory formerly known as Syria is now a collection of factions that have differing goals and are often in conflict with each other as much as with any external body. Some of those factions are actively (for varying degrees of active) hostile to Israel, some just want power within the putative borders of Syria (possibly with longer term larger ambitions), and some are just shit stirrers with no realistic end goal in mind.
Your general apolitical person living in Syria is a forgotten, meaningless pawn in a game being played between idealogues, regional powers, and global powers. I truly feel for them. They’re fucked and nobody is going to do anything concrete to help them.
To the shock of absolutely no one who was paying any attention, it turns out that the new Syrian regime is not, in fact, peaceful, tolerant, and friendly to the West; the former Al Qaeda warlord who seized the country is, in fact, a monstrous butcher.
Oh, that’s a good point, I didn’t consider that Israel forced the new regime to massacre Alawites by the dozen, by oppressing Syria, leaving them with no choice. Of course, how could I forget? Resistance isn’t perfect!!! This is what decolonization looks like!
What? Of course a new regime changes that. Areas of land don’t go to war with each other; governments do. The government that was at war with Israel no longer exists. That war is over.
What has he done to start a war with Israel? Usually, in international relations, the default assumption is that any two given nations are at peace, unless one of them does something to start a war.
The war isn’t between Bibi and Assad, it’s between Israel and Syria. Both countries are still there. Changing the leader of the regime does not restart all diplomatic relations.
Are you under the impression that Harry Truman had to re-declare war against the Axis forces?
If Mr. Former Al Qaeda, Butcher of Alawites, wants to make peace with Israel, he is now in charge of Syria and can negotiate a peace treaty. It doesn’t happen automatically just because the leader of Syria changed, though.
No, because it was still the same government, and hence the same nation. But whatever it is that’s currently in the geographic region that once held the nation of Syria, it’s not the same nation that was at war with Israel.
Fine, a closer analogy is Vichy France. They signed an armistice with Germany and the Axis powers, they didn’t just say “since we are a new regime the default assumption is that all diplomatic relations are reset”.
Problems with the FDR analogy aside, Syria absolutely still is the same nation, officially the Syrian Arab Republic. The transitional government might decide to found an entirely new country, or they might hold elections for the existing Republic, or (as seems more and more likely) Mr Al Qaeda might just not give a crap about any of that and rule as an absolute dictator.
Until someone actually founds a new country, though, it absolutely still is the Syrian Arab Republic.
That’s Donald Trump logic right there. As far has he’s concerned, all of the treaties, alliances and obligations of the United States of America became null and void the moment he came into power, because they were made by previous governments. Do you agree with that?
The fact is, international relations are between countries, not individuals, and countries have continuity beyond whichever individuals happen to be ruling them at any time. Treaties and wars remain when governments change, whether they changed peacefully or violently. Israel’s peace with Egypt didn’t end when Mubarak was overthrown, and its war with Syria didn’t end when Assad was overthrown (not to mention that Israel’s war with Syria predates the Assads’ violent rise to power by 22 years).
Governments don’t mean shit in international relations. Only countries matter.
By that logic, Syria never signed a peace treaty with Syria, either. Because the nation that is now in Syria was at war with the nation that was in Syria.
Or even simpler, @chronos: if Syria is no longer the nation previously referred to as the Syrian Arab Republic, what precisely is it? What is the official name of the country, for example?