Syria Superthread [merged]

[paracowboy]

paracowboy: My response is directly related to your point. Why do Syrians rally against Israel and call for the destruction of Israel ?? Because simply Israel is occupying their land. You're saying the Israelis are not protesting against Syrians, why should they ? No Arab nation is occupying an Israeli land.

and how does that jibe with Saudis, Yemenis, Iranians, Indonesians, Thais, Afghans, etc, etc, calling for the death of Israel, and the annhilation of Jews world-wide? Israel occupied Syrain soil after being attacked by Syria. Your rebuttal is specious at best. As per your established SOP.

Which goes to take us back to the Rabbi vs Sheikh issue. Why would you stand with a Rabbi tgat says death to all Arabs, while Israel occupies those Arabs lands!

do not, ever, say that I stand with any extremist. I do not. Especially those who attempt to justify their idiocy in the name of Religion. I, personally, do not care how anyone chooses to worship an invisible man who lives in the sky.

None of your posts have yet to show that you accept the basic idea of the war we are engaged in: Islamic Extremists are the threat to our secular, representative, free-market society. Israel is not. It is an ally (of sorts).

With the collapse of Communism, we ended that threat. The war against it, however, gave birth to the next threat, which is, (by whatever nom du jour you choose to apply) Islamic nutjobs who want to re-establish the Caliphate, and willingly butcher, murder, and torture anyone who disagrees. And they have shown that they will bring their savagery to foreign shores.

Israel is not our enemy. Islamic whackos are. And no amount of appeasement will stop them, nor will ignoring them. The first they see as weakness, the second merely gives them room to plan and orchestrate their misdeeds ON OUR SOIL.

 

[CanadaPhil]

Israel is not our enemy. Islamic whackos are. And no amount of appeasement will stop them, nor will ignoring them. The first they see as weakness, the second merely gives them room to plan and orchestrate their misdeeds ON OUR SOIL.

+1

 

[tamouh]

With the collapse of Communism, we ended that threat. The war against it, however, gave birth to the next threat, which is, (by whatever nom du jour you choose to apply) Islamic nutjobs who want to re-establish the Caliphate, and willingly butcher, murder, and torture anyone who disagrees. And they have shown that they will bring their savagery to foreign shores.

Israel is not our enemy. Islamic whackos are. And no amount of appeasement will stop them, nor will ignoring them. The first they see as weakness, the second merely gives them room to plan and orchestrate their misdeeds ON OUR SOIL.

While we both agree that Extrimisim is an issue, and we need to vigorously combat those who want to destroy our way of life and turn us back to the stone age (e.g. Taliban ideology). We do however disagree on the reasons behind some extrimists hate to America or West.

I don't know any sane or educated Syrian wants to turn Syria into another Saudi. There are very few who exist for sure, but the majority do despise Wahabisim as much as Zionisim.

I believe those who are calling for the death of Israel and America are not doing so because of their hate for democracy, freedom of rights , freedom of speech.....but rather (as was said in a post on the promise land & peace thread) because they blame their problems on the West and on top of that list is Israel continued occupation and oppression of the Palestinians.

 

[armyvern]

Why do Syrians rally against Israel and call for the destruction of Israel ?? Because simply Israel is occupying their land. You're saying the Israelis are not protesting against Syrians, why should they ? No Arab nation is occupying an Israeli land.

Tamouh,

Your outlook is revisionist history. Pro-Syrians call the strategic Golan Heights Israeli Occupied Syria, while pro-Israeli call the strategic Golan Heights Israel proper.

Perhaps some research is in order of the Yom Kippur War - Oct 1973.

6 Oct 73: While Israeli forces are at a low state of readiness due to Yom Kippur (the holiest day in the Jewish calandar) Egypt and Syria (backed by other Arabic nations) launch surprise attacks on Israel. For 48 hours, both Syria and Egypt overwhelmed Israeli Forces. Egyptian Forces were able to advance 15 miles into the Sinai. Syrian Forces were able to advance about the same distance into the strategic areas of the Golan Heights then contained within the 1973 Israeli border.

8 Oct 73: With Israeli Forces now fully functional, and Israeli Reserves fully called-up and operational, Israel is able to push back advancing Egyptian and Syrian troops swiftly to their own previous 6 Oct borders. Beyond this, and due to the threat from Syrian forces, Israel kept pushing Syrian forces beyond the 6 Oct Syrian/Israeli border, in fact, Israel advanced to within 35 miles of Damascus. Imagine that. The closest line of Israeli advance on Damascus is actually marked in Syria. A hill overlooking Damascus has Arabic writing on the side of it which denotes it as the Hill of Shame and is meant as a reminder of how close Israel got. I have a picture of it here somewhere that I will try to pull up.

24 Oct: Cease-fire is brokered by the U.N., at which point in time, Israel withdraws from the Hill of Shame overlooking Damascus to the agreed upon AOS (of which I already posted a map) in the UN cease-fire agreement.

What it all comes down to is that Syria continues to insist that both the AOS and territory on the Israeli side of the AOS, east of the 6 Oct border is "Israeli Occupied Syria" and must be given back. But is it really? I'd say not.

Syria invaded, they lost and with that loss they gave up some ground. Happens all the time in wars. In fact, Israeli did withdraw somewhat from Syria upon the cease-fire agreement. But the kicker is they only withdrew as far as Israel was comfortable with. They won, I guess it's up to them.

So Israel did not give all the Syrian territory back (but again they won the war!!) but they did give some back, or else the Israelis would still be sitting on a lonely hill-top 35 miles outside of Damascus looking in, where rightfully they could still be. Time to get over the Israeli Occupied Syria agruement because the Israelis won it fare and square and were even generous enough to give back (in the cease-fire) all that other territory up to and including the Hill of Shame. 

Moral of the story is: if you go to War with someone you'd best be willing to give up ground should you happen to lose. Better yet, don't go to war with someone if you can't win.

 

[paracowboy]

I don't know any sane or educated Syrian wants to turn Syria into another Saudi.  

no, the Ba'athists in Syria are entirely focussed on one thing: maintaining their grip on total power in Syria, and expanding that power in every neighbouring nation, especially Lebanon. To that end, they employ any and all manner of shenanigans, to include manipulating the Palestinians into invading a foreign nation, and constantly keeping the effects of those manipulations distorted in the eyes of their own populace, much as the Soviet Union used the Imperialist Running Dogs, and the Nazis used Bolshevism/Zionism as boogeymen to distract their populations.

they blame their problems on the West and on top of that list is Israel continued occupation and oppression of the Palestinians.

their perceptions of Israel's occupation, as preached to them by their totalitarian governments seeking to keep power, and by the various other factions attempting to use them to gain power. If the various neighbouring states truly cared about the Palestinian cause, they would have made sure those poor suffering Palestinians lived in more comfort in their various refugee camps. But, that wouldn't have made for good propaganda, and wouldn't have allowed them to use the Palestinians to strike by proxy.

There are no good guys, but the Palestinians are amongst the worst of the bad guys, and they're being used by other bad guys, principally the odiously hypocritical Syrians. And they've established such a cult of death, that they enjoy it. Gnawing on old hates like a dog with a soup bone. Teaching their children to commit murder and suicide, instead of attempting to better their lives. Israel has offered any number of times over the decades to rectify their behaviour in the '30s and '40s, and to compromise. But they ain't goin' away. After the millenia of mistreatment, they exist for the sole purpose of defending Jews, and keeping them alive. They won't back down, and the only alternative is to deal with them. But the Palestinians won't, and the Syrians can't allow it. They stand to lose too much. Considering that they hold that ground due entirely to their own efforts, and in the face of the entire world's antipathy, continued calls for them to surrender it can only be seen with a cynical eye.

The "Palestinian Cause" - yet another method for the Islamoloonies to excuse their fall into savagery from feudalism. Funny how it's always somebody else's fault.

 

[muskrat89]

LOL.... making a swoooshing motion over my head and making a race car sound.

Phil - if you can't offer anything more substantive to the thread than peanut-gallery comments, keep them to yourself.

I strongly suggest that you re-read the forum guidelines, before you get introduced to the Warning System.

Thanks.

Army.ca Staff

 

[tamouh]

ArmyVern: I agree from a Military perspective Syria and Egypt had lost the 1973 war. Israel pretty much "conquered" the lands they currently control. I'm aware of the 35km to Damascus. In fact, when the news reached Damascus that the Israelis were about to invade the capital, all ministers, merchants and "loyalist" families packed their belongings and travelled North to Aleppo. Damascus was pretty much empty from any resistance when the Israelis stopped at 35km mark (so much for the defenders of the realm)

However, trace this back abit to 1967, Israel wages a war against Egypt and Syria , occupying the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt and Golan Heights from Syria, Eastern Jerusalem from Jordanian, Gaza/West Bank from Arab Forces.

The UN resolution 242 does not call for the return of the land Israel had acquired by defeating the Arab leagues in 1948. But it does recall for Israel to return the land it "conquered" in the 1967 war. While you could argue that because Syria/Egypt attacked the Israelis in 1973 they've lost that claim for return of the land through the UN resolution. Yet, we can also argue that because Syria/Egypt initiated the 1973 war because they felt the Israelis had no intention of returning the land they've acquired through 1967 war (e.g. the strong fortification of Sinai Peninsula).

The question here remain on the political front, does Israel and the Arabs want to return back to the initial UN resolution in this matter ? Will the Syrians agree to have an Israeli state next to its borders. Will the Israelis agree to return back the land they've acquired through a war they've started in exchange for peace and security the same way they have with the Egyptians ?

One issue keeps playing a major problem in the Arab-Israeli peace process is who is in control of what? It is not just a matter of land, but much more:

- Settlements built inside the 1967 occupied lands Will they be evacuated ? Will the settlers agree to live under the Syrian or Palestinian control as long as fair policies are ensured ? What if a Palestinian/Syrian claims a settler house was built on his land ?
- Waters and rivers in these lands, water is a major issue in the ME
- The fair return of the Palestinians refugees to their homes, how and who can they claim these homes?
- The security for Israel and its borders
- The sovereignty of all nations including fair access to their borders, sea ports and air space.

Will Israel give up all the advantages it has right now for a lasting peace with Syria ? Will the Syrians agree to these terms in exchange of full cooperation with the Israelis ?

I know one thing, when Jordanian, Palestinians, Syrian and Lebanese went to Oslo . The Syrians asked all Arab parties to stay united and no agreement be made unless all issues are resolved at once. However, the Jordanian and Palestinians felt they can get a "better deal" if they negotiate with Israel alone. This have definitely not worked well for either. Jordan hasn't resolved its Palestinian refugee problem, and the Palestinians.....well, lets leave it there.

I strongly believe the ME issue can only resolved by all parties sitting and hammering all points. All parties must make concessions if they wish to live in lasting peace together and must acknowledge the right for each to exist as an independent and sovereign nation.

paracowboy: You know, I find myself sometimes pondering the same thing. Are the Arab rulers and Muslim clerics using the Palestinian issue to manipulate the people in the same way Israelis are using the same issue to manipulate the West ?

I agree, Syrian regime is focused on maintaining their grip on Power. Is that why the Syrian government is not making peace with Israel ?
I've said in a previous post somewhere else, if peace is made between the Arabs and Israel, there would be no reason for the Arab citizens not to rise against their oppressing government. I sometimes wonder, are the Arab rulers smarter than we've estimated ? Did they find the weak spot of all Arabs and Muslims ??

The Palestinian refugee camps are jokes. What the Arabs have provided to the Palestinians is nothing compared to what the West have provided the Palestinians. Yet, the Arab rulers emerge as the saviors of the Palestinians!

Are the Arab rulers a curse on the ME ? Well, they could be. But I know alot of people who also blame the West for that curse. They say if it wasn't for British and French interference from the 20s-40s and until nowdays, we most likely wouldn't have had these military regimes controlling the Arab lives.

Who brought the Saud house to power ? Britain..
Who brought the turbulence to Damascus ? France..
Who divided Lebanon from Syria and gave the Turks the Askandaron ? France..
Who created the current middle east border ? Britain & France

This is where pan-Arabisim/Baathisim comes into play. Their concept is: since Britain & France put the borders between the Arabs, then they must be trying to divide the Arabs (which in some ways true).

My last comments....I remember the days of Saladin. He fought against the crusaders, and the crusaders fought against him. However, nobody was winning but blood was being shed in the name of religion. At the end, Saladin signed a peace treaty with King Richard of England in Ramala, 1192. In which Jerusalem remains in the hands of Muslims and stay open for Christian pilgrims. A year later, Saladin died of mysterious illness! Unfortunately, many know his courage, but few know his philosophy and nobility.

Can the Arabs and Israelis make a noble peace like that ? Can the Syrian government sit down with the Israeli and hammer their differences?

 

[armyvern]

Tamouh,

It just doesn't compute. Twice now these states have invaded Israel...and lost. Because they lost the 2nd time in 1973, you now want to roll back the clock to the 1967 borders and that UN resolution.

If a country goes to war (twice now) and loses, it can not yell scream and cry foul, well we lost but roll back the borders to 2 wars ago because that is what benefits us. If that's to be the case, lets settle this by rolling back the borders through a millenia of wars...and give it all back to the Hebrews...who were there first. Why not? Why does Syria get to decide which war should count? Losers don't get to make those decisions, a well-known fact that has resulted in borders which are now in existance throughout the world. Why do Arabic countries that invade Israel seem to be the only ones in the world who do not expect their borders to change when they lose in a war?

Why do they totally ignore the fact that they invaded twice, and they lost. Of course 67 benefit the Syrians and that's why they want them but their arguement has little basis in the realities of war.

OK mom, if we win this war against Israel we will keep all their territory that we win (and hopefully we will drive them into the sea)....but if we lose we'll cry foul and ask for the borders to get set back to how they were when we chose to invade them two wars ago. Funny how that works isn't it?

 

[tamouh]

It just doesn't compute. Twice now these states have invaded Israel...and lost. Because they lost the 2nd time in 1973, you now want to roll back the clock to the 1967 borders and that UN resolution.

Two questions:

1) How would you feel if in 1967 Syria started the war and presume it resulted in the Syrians reaching the port of Haifa. a UN resolution is made requiring Syria to withdraw back to the Golan Heights. Israel later attempts to return these lands through war with no success, and Syria ignores the UN resolution ?

2) Based on that above, if Syria now initiate a war with Israel , return back the Golan Height and continues its forces towards the Haifa port then propose a peace to the Israelis on the term Syria keeps the city of Haifa, will that be acceptable ?

** I should add....take these two questions in a Political perspective, not a Military point of view. In Military for the victor goes the spoils.

 

[cplcaldwell]

UNSCR 242 does not call for the return of all lands conquered by Israel in 1967. In fact, if the rule of law is applied to all of the resolution it does not require Israel to return any territory until it gets peace inside secure borders.

One can no more accept the clause
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Without accepting the entire resolution, next sentence of which states
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;


And let's note the phrase free from threats or acts of force

So 242 is up in the air, in my opinion, until Syria stops playing footsie with a Hezbollah that wants to fight Israel. Once the Syrians bugger off, they'll get Golan. Just like Egypt got Sinai. Or if we extend it further, once Iran stops messing around and Israel gets secure borders the whole shooting match is over.

242 can't be used to beat the Israelis unless it is equally employed to give them a secure peaceful border.

It's like saying that part of a contract must be enforced on the first party even though the second party is in material breach of other parts of it.

 

[tamouh]

So 242 is up in the air, in my opinion, until Syria stops playing footsie with a Hezbollah that wants to fight Israel. Once the Syrians bugger off, they'll get Golan. Just like Egypt got Sinai. Or if we extend it further, once Iran stops messing around and Israel gets secure borders the whole shooting match is over.

Correct, the resolution calls for both side to make peace. This is where things stumbling, weren't the Arabs saying in Oslo: "Peace for Land" ?

Also ironic....the conflict started between Palestinians/Israelis, then grew to include Syria, Jordan and Egypt, then Iraq, then Lebanon and now Iran. It just seems the longer this conflict keeps on going, the more complex it will get and harder to reach a solution which appeases everyone.

 

[cplcaldwell]

Yes that was exactly what the Arabs were saying in Oslo in 1993, 26 years after 242 was passed.But I don't recall Syria being at the table, so were they part of the solution?

And it would have worked without the intifada (2nd one right?). But again, was that a result of Sharon going to the Temple Mount or Arafat using it as pretext to start the insurrection?

Perhaps we can get back to it some day. Which we almost had after the Sharm al Shakh agreements. Until Hamas repudiated the agreements.

<edited to add that bit at the top about Syria being at Oslo>

 

[tamouh]

Yes that was exactly what the Arabs were saying in Oslo in 1993, 26 years after 242 was passed.

And it would have worked without the intifada (2nd one right?). But again, was that a result of Sharon going to the Temple Mount or Arafat using it as pretext to start the insurrection?

Perhaps we can get back to it some day. Which we almost had after the Sharm al Shakh agreements. Until Hamas repudiated the agreements.

Incorrect, the whole Peace process died with the assassination of Isaac Rabin by a radical Jewish extremist and it is still buried in his grave.

The reason we got to the Oslo accord mainly due to the attention 1st Intifada brought...the secondary was the promise George Sr. made to Arafat after Gulf War I that the US will resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Well, GW Bush didn't, Clinton did get closer....but all died in 1995.

cplaldwell, Temple Mount doesn't exist no more. If you want to resurrect 2000 yo story, then no point of carrying this conversation, we can go back to Abraham and how the Arabs/Jews are cousins, then go even further to Adam and conclude we're all from the same father ?

Sharon did NOT visit the Temple Mount, Sharon attempted to enter the Aqsa mosque, something he knew would ignite an outrage from the Palestinians and Muslims world wide.

 

[FredDaHead]

Sharon did NOT visit the Temple Mount, Sharon attempted to enter the Aqsa mosque, something he knew would ignite an outrage from the Palestinians and Muslims world wide.

Is there anything, besides letting themselves be killed, that Israel and Jews in general can do that will not ignite an outrage from the palestinians and idiotic Islamist radicals worldwide?

They got criticized and attacked for pulling out of Gaza, pulling out of Lebanon, and also for defending themselves inside their borders against MUSLIM terrorists. Why should they bother giving anything to the people who will try to kill them at every opportunity?

 

[cplcaldwell]

Respectfully no. The Peace Process did not die with Rabin in 1995.

Certainly Netanyahu's insistence the PLO curb the violence and suicide bombings emanating from inside Gaza and the West Bank and his construction of settlements on the West Bank did little to advance the process (96-99). But it was Arafat who walked away from the table at Camp David on 24 July 2000 over a few thousand hectares and the right of return (which they will never get) without putting a counter proposal on the table to Clinton.

I think it is more likely we got to Oslo ('93) as a result of the Madrid Conference ('91) . Subsequent rounds were definitely at the behest of Bush I, in order to get the Palestinians a home. These rounds got a Jordanian-Israeli peace ('94) and damn near got a Syrian-Israeli peace. If I remember the first Intifada is generally considered to have been 1987-90. Although the first Intifada brought the Europeans and Russians to the table I think it was the negotiations that got us Oslo, not a year or two of riots, a couple of years of civil disobendience and a final year of pacification by Arens.

Temple Mount, whatever, it's a common usage, you don't want to use it, okay, we'll call it al Haram al Sharif, another common usage. ( You'll never now how hard I had to look to find that reference...)

Sharon went to al Haram al Sharif in September 2000. There is ample evidence from inside even the PLO that Arafat had something up his sleeve after Camp David failed. As to what exactly happened that day, there are a number of accounts.

Anyway, my library is now a mess and I need a smoke. Perhaps tomorrow.

 

[tomahawk6]

Never thought I would agree with Chirac but in this instance I do. Defanging Syria would have helped the Lebanese government, short term anyway. The Syrian military would have been degraded and possibly the Assad government would have been overthrown but if not Assad would have been issued a warning.If Iran didnt enter the war on Syria's behalf they would have been exposed as being weak.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879109084&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

French President Jacques Chirac told Israel at the start of the war in Lebanon that France would support an Israeli assault on Syria, it was reported on Sunday.

Army Radio reported that in the message, which was delivered by Chirac to Israel via a secret channel, the French president suggested that Israel invade Damascus and topple the regime of Bashar Assad. In exchange, Chirac assured Israel full French support for the war.

According to the message delivered from Paris, Syria was responsible for the flare up in the North and encouraged Hizbullah to attack.

"Former prime minister Ariel Sharon had explained to the French in the past that Iran is the main one responsible for Hizbullah's armament in Lebanon, while Chirac saw Syria as the primary one responsible for the matter," former Israeli ambassador to France Nissim Zvilli told Army Radio in an interview.

"President Chirac saw Syria as directly responsible for the attempt to undermine the Lebanese regime," he said. "He saw them as directly responsible for the murder of [former Lebanese prime minister] Rafik Hariri and directly responsible for arming Hizbullah. Likewise, he saw Syria as the one giving Hizbullah orders on how to operate."

In March of last year, some four months before the war began, Chirac warned Syria that the international community would respond harshly to any attempt to destabilize Lebanon.

"Syria must understand that any act that encroaches upon the stability of Lebanon, be it through the shipment of weapons or assassinations, is an act that contradicts with its standing in the international community and will trigger a response from the international community," Chirac said at the time.

During the war, France was one of the foremost proponents of sending a multinational UNIFIL force to police the Israel-Lebanon border, and even offered to lead it.

Towards the end of the war, however, diplomatic officials said France had changed its mind out of concern that its badly strained relations with Syria would lead Hizbullah to target French soldiers.

France, the officials pointed out, was instrumental in pushing through UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which forced Syria out of Lebanon. In addition, it was a key force behind the establishment of the commission of inquiry into the assassination of Hariri, who was a personal friend of Chirac.

AP and Herb Keinon contributed to this report.

 

[Shec]

In exchange, Chirac assured Israel full French support for the war.

Gee, with that assurance and $1.25 one can get a cup of coffee.  Israel's been screwed by France before (after the 1967 war) so why would it believe them? 

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Agreed.  Chirac is a weasel and would've hung Israel out to dry.


Matthew. 

 

[ModlrMike]

We all know how well this would have worked given France's previous successes in the Middle East.  :

 

[hoist-monkey]

;D
Chirac would have sent an Airbus A380 full of white sheets.