The war of words between Israel and Russia about the latter’s advanced weapons systems bound for Syria just got hotter after Israel’s defense minister, Bogie Yaalon, threatened his country would attack the new S-300 advanced missile batteries Syria has ordered from Russia. Though Israel claims they have not yet been shipped by Russia, it clearly fears that this may be imminent.
Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, has meanwhile told Hezbollah’s Al Manar that he already received the first shipment of the S-300s. If this is true, the senior Israeli intelligence and military figures who’ve been saying otherwise (that Russia hasn’t yet shipped them) now have a black eye. Either they knew what they were saying was false, and lied. Or they didn’t know, which indicates their intelligence was faulty.
The other option is that Assad is lying, which is entirely possible. My own well-placed Israeli source says Israel isn’t aware of any Russian shipment of the missiles. They must be banking on Assad lying. Otherwise, Yaalon is going to look pretty foolish.
Since some media sources have indicated Yaalon threatened to attack the Russian weapons en route to Syria, it’s important to note he didn’t. He said that the missiles were unacceptable and that if delivered Israel “would know what to do.” That’s euphemism for we’ll take them out. Israel did just that last January, when it attacked a reputed shipment of SA-17 missiles apparently bound for Hezbollah’s hands in Lebanon. In that strike, Iran’s senior IRG general in Syria was killed. It’s unclear whether he was killed accidentally, and Israel really targeted the missiles alone; or whether both the shipment and the officer were targets.
At any rate, the difference in this case is that Yaalon is telling Russia that its red line has just moved forward. Before, Israel was only willing to attack Syria to prevent “game-changing” weapons from getting directly into Hezbollah hands inside Lebanon. Now, possibly because of the increasingly unstable situation inside Syria, Israel warns it will attack such weapons even if intended only for use in the former country.
If Yaalon’s threat is real (and so much of Israel’s defense posturing is bluff and bluster so it’s hard to know), then Israel is not just threatening to take on Russia much more directly than in the past, but it’s clearly taking a side in the civil war against Assad. Denying Assad the S-300s, means he will not be able to prevent the imposition of a no-fly zone over that country. This in turn would help neutralize the air power the loyalists bring to bear against the rebels in the form of helicopter gunships and war planes firing missiles on opposition positions and civilian strongholds.
If Assad gets his missiles, they will become yet another deterrent against further escalating western-Sunni military intervention. Which means the butcher from Damascus will be that much harder to dislodge and the bloodshed will go on even longer.
@Dana — Interesting comments on the Hamas arrangement with Saudis. Hard to see how any Palestinian representative could deal with the Saudis who, as you suggest, deal with Israel.
@Deir Yassin — I certainly don’t question your support for Palestinians. Frankly, I come to this blog to be straighten out, to be challenged and get “it” better! Sure, I understand the liberation of one is necessary to the liberation of the other and all of that talk. BUT — in the hard world of real political goals one needs to choose where and how to achieve some movement toward a particular goal. A freedom movement in Syria would, of course, redound to Palestine, but what are the chances of this interventionist mess in Syria resulting in a liberated, non-sectarian outcome? While the US and Israel do not want chaos in Syria, they wouldn’t mind an outcome of political/geographic impotence either. And this seems probable to me, given the array of forces at work. Again and again I see really obnoxious political elements rising to the surface and controlling events. In short — the position of Palestinians is so horrible, so critical, so unacceptable, that it is worth bedding with bad guys if doing so represents any sort of defiance of Israel, if it costs Israel resources and energy to confront. I would resurrect Hussein if I could simply because he had the temerity to fire scuds into the heart of Zion, pushing back in a dramatic way.
Daniel F: Words like “paranoia” and “hegemony” do explain Israel’s specific aims of its many incursions into the sovereign territory of neighbors (and elsewhere, of course,) but they are a good backdrop or foundation for starting to piece together its motivations. Second — of course withdrawing from Lebanon did not bring “peace” with Hezbollah and that was not the intent in any case. Neither was the withdrawal from Gaza a peace gesture. Israel has never made a meaningful peace offer but has used a “peace process” to further the occupation, and increase violence against Palestinian. The only peace Israel is interested in is the one in which it grabs the whole of Palestine (and then some) and Palestinians are reduced to a token handful in the extended state. In short, peace for Israel means surrender for Palestinians forever.
Sadam and Assad may both be rated murderous villains but they share the virtue of maintaining secular regimes that are outside the US/Israeli orbit, major pluses by any calculation, even the calcs of torture and wanton executions. US/Israeli intervention in Syria now will have the result of opening Syria to fundamentalists, endless civil strife, devastated infrastructure and military impotence, all in the service of an Israeli Pax and US commercial interests. Can anyone point to a different future should US assisted rebellion succeed? Iraq is all the proof anyone can reasonably require.
Eventually all things change. Israeli dominance, other than strategic, is a result of Israeli technology and US provisions with forgiven military sales. Right now most of the Arab countries have great internal problems with the rise of a stronger Muslim groundswell; corrupt leadership; and frustration with the inability to see change in all things from human rights to a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. They are in disarray politically while still having enough weapons to cause many Israeli deaths if conflict arises. Their armies have been trained much better as have their air forces by Britain, the US, and even Russia. Israeli cannot do as it wishes forever. Remember at one time only the US had nuclear weapons, then the list of countries having them grew.
Iran is not an Arab country but shares with many the Shiite version of Islam. Will they develop nuclear capabilities? Probably no matter what posturing by the US or Israel. Can any other opponent or peace agreement neighbor of Israel purchase or obtain such weapons? Probably in time.
Russia under Putin is staking their role in the Middle East by supporting their weapon sales clients. No, Russia is not going to bomb or invade Israel but they certainly would suffer fatalities in any Israeli strike and would react with planes, weapons or getting permission from Assad to put Russian troops in Syria to protect his regime.
I too must agree with elements of Dana’s comment. The destruction of Syria was intentional from the moment Bush invaded Iraq against the wishes of the Saudi King and crown-prince Abdullah. The shift in political power by the Maliki tyranny in Baghdad, forced the hand of the GCC states and Turkey to look after their own interests.
Qatar has very selfish interests with their gas pipeline to the Mediterranean Sea, Turkey wants the economic ties and oil of Iraq’s northern Kurds, Saudi Arabia gives religious support to any and all of the true faith of Islam.
Israel realized quite late that Assad’s overthrow would offer opportunities, but also danger to its national interest.
The US just didn’t want to get into another military conflict and put misplaced trust in NATO allies Turkey, Great Britain and France. The theory of the Libya option failed miserably. Hillary “neocon” Clinton and Susan Rice expected Medvedev and Russia to roll over by applying enough political pressure and sustained propaganda from their MSM.
Besides the neocon manifesto, great article on how the Saudis were undermining Syrian society in the past decade. The succes of preaching the Wahhabist version of Islam in western mosques is a matter of daily news and statistics. Besides the hundreds of European nationals traveling to Syria for Jihad, the “lone wolf” attacks in Boston, London, Amsterdam and Toulouse offer the best illustration.
Qui, thanks for that article on the educational indoctrination in Syria towards wahabism. That was really enlightening – and quite a propo, given what we see (as little of it that we have seen) of the make-up of the so-called “rebels”. One can’t help but wonder whether the entire campaign to tear up Syria as now unfolding was just an attempt to put in place some kind of a sectarian end game.
We, out in the West, who are not muslim, know woefully little of the forces that continue to whip up sectarian fires within. We tend to dismiss the sunni/shiite divide, seeing it a bit like catholicism vs protestanism – conveniently forgetting how bloody those battles were in the Europe of old. Looking at it from the outside we tend to see all muslims as made of one cloth, though the reality is quite different. Also we have been swayed by the fact that sunnis and shiites in different countries had – over centuries – learnt to live side by side, more or less peacefully. Clearly, there was huge resentment when one sect (Saddam’s for example) came to rule over another )the shiites of Iraq), depriving them of rights and access to the country’s wealth. We often don’t realize how complicated things can get when class warfare is intertwined with tribal and sectarian politics. I think that is partly what we saw going on in Syria.
Agree with the gist of your other comments. And thanks for interjecting. IMO, this debate over Syria is important – when the wrappings of “bad tyrant” vs “bad jihadists” are lifted, what we have is the reality of geopolitical power plays. Though some may conclude I have somehow turned into a fan of Assad, my reasons for speaking up are that I try to be consistent in putting the interests of the people above whatever heart-felt revulsion against this or that tyrant are. My studies of history led to a deep distrust of all bloody revolutions. In the end they often gain more blood -letting, long before any actual rights for the people come to pass.
In this context, Assad’s intelligence and legitimacy of rule are basically on par with what we see among despotic rulers in many Arab countries, including Jordan, SA, yemen etc. If Deir Yassin for example supports removal of tribally propped despotic strong-men by tearing countries apart, then presumably he/she wouldn’t object to doing the same in Bahrain as in Syria? except that there is no such call, is there? That’s part of what i ask for – consider that what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. And it is the act of tearing people asunder that is problematic. To me, in the end, people matter more than arguing over shades of of tyrany. that is why i also will not support an outsider-driven armed campaign to depose the Bahraini despot monarchs or the saudis or the Abdullah king in Jordan, no matter how unappetizing they and their rule are. “Kings” have never been my favorites but neither are bloody, foreign-manipulated “revolutions” that end up wreaking more havoc on the very people they professed to help (Case in point: Russia and the Bolshevik take-over. yes, i would have supported the Mansheviks at the time, which would not have been the same as supporting the Czar. Though that would have probably resulted in an untimely demise, so just as well to be here now than there then).
@ Dana
“If Deir Yassin for example supports removal of tribally propped despotic strong-men by tearing countries apart, then he/she presumably wouldn’t object to doing the same in Bahrain as in Syria ?”
Could you please find anything in my comments that indicates that I might support the “tearing apart” of Syria ? Only a few days ago I wrote that maybe one of the long-term results of what’s going on could be the breaking down of borders created by Western colonialism. Personally I would love to see the renaissance of Bilad as-Shâm. Bashar al-Assad and his disgusting regime are primary responsible for the ongoing destruction of Syria.
And talking about Bahrain is really using one of the hasbara procedures. How could you even imagine that I don’t support the overtrhow of the Bahraini regime ? Did we ever discuss that here ?
deir yassin “Could you please find anything in my comments that indicates that I might support the “tearing apart” of Syria?” not literally, of course. But effectively that’s what would happen to Syria if it is broken up along sectarian lines. The kurds want to do their own thing, the Sunnis want their “day in the sun”, which will likely go extreme islamist (see the interesting article Qui brought up above) and the Allawites will want their own piece of the action. The winners of this will be the extreme zionist state, which is laboring under pressure by its own, rapidly increasing fundamentalists. Strangely enough the wahabbis and the ultra-orthodox jews have quite a bit in common.
So where are the palestinians in all this? anywhere at all?
Frankly, I think that were you to try some dispassioned, level-headed analysis of the various forces vying with each other for control in the ME, you may end up concluding, as I head, that the loss of Syria as a soverign, unified country, will herald a much greater loss for the palestinians.
Are you sure you are not coming from a sectarian place? siding with sunnis against the more secular-oriented allawites? I have no proof that this is so, but the strong sentiments expressed in your post make me wonder. sometimes I wonder what’s really going on under the surface among those who profess solidarity for the Palestinian cause.
An aside: no, I don’t want to do hasbara a la “look there, not here” but bahrain is a good example comparing with Syria, the protests there being coincident in time and also considered symptomatic of the Arab spring. I bring up bahrain because of the different ways saudi Arabia (with the US in tow) chose to intervene in the two places. propping up a despotic regime in one place, sending in the worst of the jihadis to bring down an equally despotic regime in another place. the main difference? Sunnis ruling in one case, Allawites in another. So yes, one can be excused for drawing attention to the obvious contrast and seriously questioning the SA/Quatar motives on Syria.this is not hasbara as much as it is a case begging for comparative analysis.
one can oTOH, look at Assad’s misdeeds. OTOH, one can look at the strange alliance formed against him, and ask what is it that unites such seemingly disparate entities – SA/Quatar/Israel/US/France/UK – the same alliance that went after Quaddafi, obviously trying for a repeat? Being ever so conspiracy minded, perhaps I choose to do the latter, but it is legitimate to ask why you don’t find that israel/SA/US neoconut axis a bit suspicious. Surely you don’t expect us all to believe that this any operators within this bizzare alliance really care that much about Syria? and if you are willing to fall into lock step with the jihadi-wielding despots, and the neocon destroyers of Iraq, you should not be surprised if some of us look somewhat askance at your professed support for the Palestinians.
@ Dana
“Are you sure you’re not coming from a sectarian place ? Siding with Sunnis against the more-secular oriented Alawites ? (…..) You should not be surprised if some of us look somewhat askance at your professed support for the Palestinians”
This is simply a joke ! Who are those “us” a part from you ? My grand-parents were expelled from Palestine (you know, the place where you grew up…..) so don’t you question my support for the Palestinian cause. And I’m much closer to the PFLP than to Hamas. You apparently haven’t read any of my comments on this blog but just judge from what I think about Syria. Amazing ! After two or three comments, you are capable of ‘questioning my support for the Palestinians’. Did you ever bother to look into what Palestinians – including those who live in Syria – think.
If I’m coming from a sectarian place ? Isn’t that wonderful ? That’s why Christian Palestinian intellectuals as Azmi Bishara and Salameh Kaileh support the revolts in Syria, that’s why well-known Alawites as Samar Yazbek and Fadwa Suleiman are against the regime. The Assad-regime on the contrary has never been ‘sectarian’.
I realize why I’ve never felt like commenting on Mondoweiss….too much binary ‘thinking’ around.
@Deir Yassin:
That’s a subject I could talk long about. But I agree completely with you in this.
I’d be curious to know. Mondoweiss is a valuable site, lots of good articles, Phil writes some good stuff on his ‘Jewish heritage’ too, the daily update with news concerning Palestine is valuable, but the comment section has simply run out of control, the same people ‘discussing’ the same stuff year after year. And the conspiracy theories have a high standing. And I’ve noticed that when there’s an article actually dealing with Palestinian living conditions or Palestinian culture (written by a Palestinian for example), there’re only a few comments. Some valuable commenters around, though, and Annie is doing a great job, and really cares about the Palestininas, so do Phil and Adam.
Israel : The mouse that roared, I am amazed as an Israeli, that the world takes us so seriously, Israel is a paper tiger, I know that because I live here for more than 40 years. This country has no future, in a few decades it will be swollen by an Islamic entity that we Israelies helped to develop in our refusal to the two state solution.
Todays Russia is different than Jelzins from 90s. Putin wants to have Russia a world player, something he could not afford on start of his carrier. Assad is just one of his moves on a way to reach that goal. It is tealing that he did not furfill agreement with Iran over this same type of weapons, but will do with Syria. He feeels strong enaf to go on with war of strategic moves, but I belive if Israel attacks russian personel or warship Putin will go to war. It is on Israel to chose what to do next.
If the Israelis were so rash as to attack Russian shipments or actual Russian naval units and defy Russia to respond meaningfully, I would expect Putin to lob a series of ballistic missiles into Dimona, atomic or otherwise, and cripple the Israeli nuclear deterrent. Game reset in the Middle East.
So, how much of this “Syrian missile crisis” is an edited modern-day version of the Cuban missile crisis? Luck had a lot to do w/ the latter not turning into a nuclear holocaust.
It is laughable for Israel to fantasize about striking a Russian shipment at a Russian naval base. The S300 will be delivered to Tartus and there is nothing Israel will do about it. What Israel will do is make strikes against Syrian military & government buildings in Syria, claiming that they attacked weapons shipments being transferred to Hezbollah.
That is most likely the correct analysis i.e. the Russians will set up these S-300 systems in Tartus, meaning that they will be made operational under the missile defence umbrella of Russian warships.
Then – and only then – will they be handed over to the Syrians.
Israel will therefore do what they are so singularly good at i.e. smack down some other ill-defended and generally valueless target while spinning some yarn about
a) how vital that smouldering wreck was for Assad/Nassrallah/Ahmadinejad/you-name-it, and
b) how daring their can-do fly-boys are at reducing that Absolutely Vital Target to rubble.
It’ll all be bulls**t.
The target will be chosen because of its lack of defences, and the reason why it will be attacked will be nothing more than that the Israeli leadership with be infuriated, and the only way they know to feel better about themselves is to drop some bombs on someone.
Richard, I can’t believe you are taking the side of the cannibals and the Saudi/Qatari/turkey/US/Israel axis which is intent on destroying Syria and breaking it up into factions. What evidence do you have to sustain your “butcher from damascus” epithet? claims from the so-called “Observer” mission in London or the triply mis-named “free” “Syria ” “army” who have become notorious for their poorly constructed propaganda, including those “chemical” weapon claims? in what way is Asssad worse than the fat greedy kings of the golf states? what have you got against the Syrian people who are doing all the suffering as a result of the external armed intervention in their country?
May be you should read a little of the cogent analysis offered at moonofalabama.org which appears to have a more astute inside knowledge of the situation not just in Syria but also understands the machinations the west has brought upon to destroy the country of Syria. This site has done great service, helping debunk the most egregious propaganda mounted by the Western “exile” rebels and their saudi–supported Al–Quada friends.
There was a recent interview with a “leader’ of the original peaceful demonstrations against Assad’s government in Aleppo, one who calls himself Edward Dark (nom-de-guerre). he described the situation in “rebel” (cf cannibal?) -occupied Aleppo as thousand times worse than anything assad has wrought and has become seriously disillusioned with the armed terrorism that has engulfed the occupied part of the city. He described the “rebels” as a collection of unhappy disgruntled people from the impoverished, rural countryside of Syria, who are intent not on democratic governance but on revenge. The occupied part of Aleppo has in fact been looted, terrorized and all but destroyed, and that without Assad lifting a finger.
Are the armed forces of the Syrian government angels? of course not. But they are up against an absolutely horrendous plot to destroy the country from within and without through a truly unappetizing alliance between the worst despots in the Gulf, the zionist occupation regime hell bent on destroying Iran (an existential threat!) and the most mis-guided, naive collection of pretend-humanitarian interventionists in the West who are committed to carrying the White man’s burden. Apolgists for the old colonial regimes of France/UK along with the killer-drone wielders Empire’s apologists. A fine assortment indeed.
Behind the concerted campaign against the secular Assad, is a rag-tag alliance of islamists, salafists, badly misguided Turkish faction, israel’s working towards building it’s much coveted corridor elf to attack Iran and keep the Golan heights (and perhaps expand further), and the naivite and disingenuousness of the “liberal”, “humanitarian” interventionists in the west. idiots like Anne marie Slaughter (apt name there – may be she could go see how her “rebels” slaughter civilians they don’t like or who are just in the way) hand in hand with the ever silly John mcCain, posing for pictures with known terrorist kidnappers. i wish, these humanitarians/empire peddlers – Slaughter, Graham, McCain and even Juan Cole (at his worst at least) could be shipped to Syria for a month stay as august “observers” (or may be in the role of advisors to Al-Nusra?). At least the liberal hawks would know what it’s like to have skin in the game.
OTOH, Russia has been playing it’s hand masterfully. It now seems the “opposition” has failed to reach an agreement about attending Geneva II? having spent nearly a week airing it’s total disarray providing a much welcome entertainment for a weary world to see.
@Dana: Cannibal? You want to talk about cannibalism? Firing missiles on entire civilian neighborhoods? Massive firing on unarmed demonstrators at the beginning of the revolt before the oppostion armed? Destroying your entire country in order to maintain the corrupt, brutal lifestyle to which you, your cronies and tribe have become accustomed?
You call one horrific incide4nt by one insane rebel fighter any comparison to that? If so, you’ve taken leave of any semblance of balance.
Because Assad rules his country and not the Gulf States. Nor do they rule Syria. They may be intervening in SYria, but they would not be if Assad had responded differently to the original peaceful revolt. It was Assad’s bloodthirstiness that drew outsiders into the conflict. There is one simply way to end outside intervention: get rid of Assad or create some agreement with the Opposition that will satisfy it. Barring that, it will be a fight to the finish & Assad will not win.
It’s simply unbelievable that you refuse to assign blame where it belongs. THere were no external forces intervening in the beginning. It was only as a result of Assad’s butchery that they did so. I simply find it extraordinary that you’ve become an apologist for such a tyrant. I can understand “a pox on both their houses,” though I wouldn’t agree with it. But taking sides with Assad is beyond the Pale.
Not to mention your offering Bernhardt’s (Moon of Alabama) “analysis” as probative. Though some of his work is creditable (& I even said so here in the past), he also has a bit of an obsessive compulsive disorder about other issues. He’s a mean-spirited rhetorical brutalist. Though I don’t know him, clearly their are demons at work there. He began calling me an agent of the Mossad and stalking me online. He confused nitpicking over minutiae with analysis of overall issues. This is the source you want to offer as having the best discussion of the issues? I’m afraid if he’s the best you can offer, your cause is truly hopeless. I unfortunately had to ban him even because he simply wanted to argue ad nauseam on the same picayune subjects.
You offer an anecdotal account by a single supposed former rebel leader who’s turned against them? And that indicative of what? That you have overall evidence of any large-scale phenomenon? You don’t even know who this fellow is, let alone what he’s done in the past. And you credit him as your authority on the brutality of the rebels? The fact that you even need to undermine the early stage of the peaceful revolt in Syria is sickening and morally bankrupt.
Sounds like Assad to me. You’re welcome to Assad, you can have him. But you won’t find any sympathy here for your views, nor for your good pal, Bernhardt.
This is almost word for word the language used by Israeli nationalists who “sentence me” to a week or month in Israel where they’ll be happy to show me the perfidy of the Arab enemy and the existential dangers faced by the settlers. There is a reason why your language mirrors theirs. Because you too have become trapped in the rhetoric of apology for tyranny.
Further, your embrace of another tyrant, Russia’s Putin, as a “masterful” player goes even farther in defining the bankruptcy of your cause.
I really don’t think there’s much more to talk about with you. I must say I never expected to read such delusion from you, someone whose views I appreciated and valued in the past. But then again, I once felt that way about Bernhardt himself. YOu’ve apparently drunk his Kool Aid.
I don’t know — I think Dana has a point. The epithet of “bloodthristy” characterized Sadam as well and helped launch the US into Iraq, ruining the country for Iraqis except for getting rid of Sadam. Today, 30 more dead in a civil bombing in Iraq. You recall the long list of Sadam’s viciousness against “his own people” as the MSM emphasized. You are siding with a very bad group each with an agenda that has nothing to do with making anything nice for Syrians, least of all the US or Israel who will likely rue the day they handed Syria over to extremists. If the US/Israel/Saudi axis prevails, Syria will be an Iraq, nearer again to the stone age and still in a civil war. This is not desirable.
And putting a damper on Israel’s dominance of the skies would be a giant step toward actual stability in the region and one can only hope these anti-aircraft weapons find good safe homes in Lebanon and Syria.
Alas, Richard, it sure seems like we fiercely disagree on this one. I appreciate your detailed response and frankly, happen to think that there is a place for such debates. may be not on your blog, I agree. just to clarify a few things 9for what it’s worth, may be not much) my take on Syria and related events is really very simple – regardless of whatever is said by MOA or the “interventionists”, humanitarian or otherwise. The key points::
1. what started as possible rumblings of the Arab Spring with relatively peaceful demonstrations in Aleppo was hijacked by foreign entities and turned – deliberately and methodically into a “sectarian war”. the purpose of which can be readily surmised from the list of participants in the supply-line to the Jihadists, now comprising the majority of “fighters” on the ground in Syria.
2. Assad for sure over-reacted to the demonstrations – something he must by now regret. This over-reaction was however exploited as a fuse to light up an armed “insurrection” exploiting the existing inequities in Syria (between rural poor and urban not so poor).
3. The collusion between reactionary and regressive saudi Arabia/UAE axis, israel which has its own designs, and “progressive”interventionists in the west should give any of us a serious pause. What is it they say about lying down with dogs and waking up with fleas?
4. To support my take on the dubious bed-fellows here – I bring Exhibit A: Bahrain. now where are all the interventionists on that one? last I noticed the crack-down on perfectly peaceful demonstrations for simply greater rights in Bahrain was truly brutal – far more so than anything Assad did. Now, why the incredible silence in the western media (other than a little tsek-tsek here and there)? why haven’t France/UK/US/Israel rushed to arm the rebels in Bahrain? where are the congressional hearings about the tortured bahraini doctors? could it possibly be because the demonstrators were mostly disempowered shiites (now a majority in bahrain)? now, it wouldn’t have anything to do with oil, would it?
5. Exhibut B: Yemen. why exactly the arrangement in yemen (where the “tyrant” stepped down to be replaced by someone from the same side, following elections in which no other candidates appeared on the ballot) did not draw the wide condemnations we saw over Syrian “rigged” elections” or the Russian ‘tainted” elections? or the suppression of the “Green”s in Iran?. Somehow I must have missed the raucous noise for democracy and the rights of the majority in selecting their leaders in Yemen’s case. Oh yes, do I see SA peeking behind the screen again, uncle sam at his side? must be my fervent imagination…
5. davey’s point above should again give us a pause (not that I agree with davey in general). Assad and his government were similar to Saddam’s Iraq in many ways, but with Saddam by far the worse “tyrant”, on a “tyrany scale’ that the west is ever so good to provide. The real mission in Iraq – as we can all see – was to break up that country and weaken it – in that the invasion succeeded quite spectacularly. Now it’s Syria’s turn to suffer the same fate? next in line in Bush’s axis of evil, perhaps? That it did not quite turn out so well for Iraqis is a moot point. The “real mission” is considered accomplished. Now all that’s left is to continue to fan the sectarian flames – make sure Iraq does not become a strong country again. Anyways, what’s with the strange silence of the pundits about what’s going on in Iraq now?
6. I agree it is truly ironic that Putin’s Russia seems like the more realistic and competent agent vis-a-vis the carefully calibrated moves in Syria. I do chuckle at my own praise of his chess game. Nonetheless I know what the neoliberal forces did to russia under yeltsin, and frankly i can see why Putin continues to enjoy the wide support he does in Russia, by the Russians (if not from us out in the “west”).
7. All that being said, I am kind of surprised at my own take on Syria, bahrain, yemen, Libya etc. For sure I supported – wholeheartedly the wests’s original intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. I was also inclined to support the intervention in Libya. based on what I’ve been reading (and not at MOA either), I have cause to revisit my own position on Libya – there was more there than met the eye, as we are all now finding out. Maybe each country is truly unique, I am now thinking. May be I – like many – am swayed by Qadafi cutting the unattractive figure he did as compared with the seemingly intelligent and rational-sounding Assad. May be. But then, like everyone else here, I am just an observer on these events. My ultimate cause are to help in whatever way i can the cause of Palestinian rights and hopefully, help prevent or at least draw out the fate israel has prepared for them.
Apologies for the long post and the typos. Please don’t feel obliged to spend time responding. I put my thoughts on whatever blog I happen to read as the inspiration moves me. Won’t blame you one bit for not wishing to carry on, or even if you prefer not to post this response. Also, i think it would be surprising – may be even disturbing – if we agreed on everything?
Finally, i didn’t realize you had issues with MOA – wasn’t following.
I am surprised too at your own take on Syria. I’m not dismissing some justification for your point of view. It is indeed worrying that the jihadists & Al Qaeda are playing a prominent role in the opposition. I hope that when Assad is overthrown there can be a government installed that maintains a semblance of ethnic & Islamic diversity. But on no account do I believe that the sins of the rebels, whatever they may be, can be compared in intensity, damage or lethality to those of Assad.
I also think “intelligent & rational sounding” gives Assad far too much credit. Just because he was schooled in Switzerland and wasn’t a 2 bit thug like his father & dead brother doesn’t mean he isn’t essentially cut from the same cloth.
I do hope our strong disagreements on this don’t overwhelm our agreements on many other matters.
“But on no account do I believe that the sins of the rebels, whatever they may be, can be compared in intensity, damage or lethality to those of Assad.”
One can’t be that black and white in calling one side’s murder more lethal or more intense than another’s. Out of the 80’000 reported dead, over 40’000 are Alawites in a country where 75% of the population is Sunni. That in itself shows a hugely disproportionate targeting and murder of Shia muslims, and no-one is asking the question of how that reconciles with the thesis of a massive government crackdown by an Alawite dictator. At the very least, it shows a 1:1 kill ratio which supports the position that the rebels are just as bad as Assad.
There is no moral high ground in murder.
@ Dana
How can you write “Assad for sure over-reacted to the demonstrations – something he must by now regret” when this is the way Syria has been ruled for the last 40 years.
The ‘intelligent and rational-sounding Assad” must be a joke. The guy is plain stupid, he doesn’t even have the guts to look into the camera when he’s lying. He’s only where he is because he’s the son of his father – much more intelligent – and because his brother died. “Intelligent”, first time I heard that about the lion cub.
“Top Goon. Diaries of a Little Dictator” has a perfect portrayal of the guy. They’re hardly exagerating. This episode “Who wants to kill a million” is a perfect introduction to Bashar al-Assad:
link to youtube.com
Deir Yassin, it sure looks like the Gulf state/Israel/West alliance to destroy Syria has the potential to split those who support the palestinians’ cause. Right down the middle, I fear. perhaps that was the idea behind arming the Jihadis who are injected into Syria, in the first place. Armed and monied to the hilt with Saudi Arabian/UAE currency and salafst/Wahabist ideologies, these are the ones who hijacked the Syrian “Spring”. left to their own devices, there were other ways of supporting the Syrian people’s quest for more equitable system of government. I am convinced that in due course, Assad, would have slowly relented and loosened the grips of the iron rule. Yes, there would have been suppression, but if the revolt was of and by the people, no ruler could stand it for long. Check out what happened in Egypt (even though it hasn’t quite turned out well for the people – yet. But at least the country is still intact and there are no 100’s of thousands of Egyptian refugees streaming across borders). I can’t help but wonder whether things would have turned out the same for Egypt if the Muslim brotherhood did not get the support of Quatar/SA.
I understand where Richard is coming from – originally I supported the demonstrations against Assad’s rule as well, and was hoping to see a turn for the better in terms of reform and democratization. I turned against the armed foreign-supported battle which had a clear, unmistakable agenda of turning this into a civil war, and have arrived at my current position after reading – extensively – about who those “rebels” are and what they have done to the people of Syria in the areas they came to control. There are basically no positive stories coming out from “rebel” controlled areas, other than more oppression, more refugees and more looting and more death. We have absolutely no reason to believe that what is planned for a post-Assad Syria will be in any way better for the people of Syria. As in ALL the people, not just a replacement of one ruling sect by another.
There is a reason Assad could make the decisive move against Al-Qusair now and not before. per the transcript of the interview he gave to al-manar, Assad pointed out quite rationally, that any serious assaults on rebel strongholds made had to be made against a backdrop of turn-around in the Syrian people’s views of the conflict. In other words, before he felt sufficiently confident of the majority of the Syrian people’s backing, any major assault on rebel/Jihadi-controlled territory had the potential to be counterproductive. especially given the PR panache the so-called “rebels” were armed with. that level of comprehension of the conflict’s parameters bespeaks of intelligence, whether one likes the guy or not.