31 August 2013

Should he stay or should he go? (He, of course, is Bashar Assad)

I found this article in The Times of Israel most interesting. As a Western anti-fascist, my reflex response was to see Assad gone, until I thought of the alternatives facing Syria. And the consequences of one or a coalition of the jihadist groups coming out on top. Then I'd wonder again...

Not that it's up to me, of course.

However, trying to discern what's best for Israel, now there's a real conundrum. Especially if you're not an Israeli. This quandary became especially acute when we had some members of the Israeli branch of the family staying for a few days. The consensus among them (there were enough around for the notion of a consensus to be a realistic one) was that he should stay. If he went, the blood-bath among the Alawites would not be pretty, and there didn't seem to be a group or a coalition of groups that would create a stable entity to Israel's north-east.

If Assad were to survive in power, they were arguing, he would be weakened and would know better than to attack Israel, given that he would have a much reduced army, much less effective than before (and it didn't exactly cover itself with glory in 1967 and 1973), facing a powerful, well-trained, full-strength foe.

Well, they're Israelis, they should know, I assumed. Then this article argues otherwise. Here we have two experts, Brig. Gen. (ret) Shlomo Brom, a senior research fellow at the Institute of National Security Studies, and Professor Efraim Inbar, the head of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies. In their slightly different ways, they are saying that the least bad outcome from Israel's point of view was that Assad not stay in power. I'm not sure that I fully follow or agree with their arguments, especially when Brom is quoted as follows: he said that "Assad’s bottom line was “survivability” — a goal that clashed with a major strike against Israel. “Syria is right on our border,” he said. “We can be very effective there… actually, more so than the Americans.” If so, why want him gone? Anyway, their arguments are right there in the article.

By Brian Goldfarb.


SnoopyTheGoon said...

At this point, the least bad outcome is for the two sides to continue fighting. Keeps them busy and drains Iranian resources. Either side winning will give them a boost and they inevitably move on to their next target.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I hate to say it, but anyone would be more effective than our military. It has been eroded from within by PC. I wouldn't trust it to do "precision" anything. Remember the whole city block they took out in Baghdad when they thought Saddam would be having lunch at a particular restaurant?

SnoopyTheGoon said...

He should stay. It is better to have the enemy you know than the enemy you don't know.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I need you guys to help me. I think that most folks who are for the demise of Assad either want a weak Syria which would not attack Israel, not that it would anyway. Or they want a Greater Israel in the tradition of Yinon Zionism. I want to know how seriously the leaders of Israel take Yinon Zionism. Maybe the authors of this blog would pitch in as well.

BTW, you guys are funny regarding your introductions. That was not said to butter you up, but if you feel buttered I can't take that responsibility.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Thanks Brian, the Clash had it pegged years ago:


The answer is in the Lyrics......

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Yinon Zionism? How old fashioned, Gary. Think the whole darn world, instead of some puny Greater Israel.

P.S. Apparently there are people who still read that Shahak crap. Pity. There are other things that may cause people to want Assad demise. Keep reading these here pages, Gary.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Agreed, totally. Let the civil war go on, and on, and on. The IDF can keep the border safe. That's all Israel needs to worry about, for now.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Well, while the plan is definitely attractive, unfortunately I cannot agree with it.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Well I do know that Qatar wants a gas pipeline, and Israel wants the Golan Heights oil, and needs Syria to be broken up, and Saudi Arabia also wants the gas pipeline.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

But I don't believe Shahak writings are to be dismissed. See my article here: http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2013/09/any-attack-on-syria-is-a-war-crime-unless-israel-walks-away-from-genie-energy-2448302.html

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Golan Heights oil? Why do we need Golan heights oil when we have all the Saudi oil we may ever want and more? Check this out Gary:

And why should Syria be broken up, for crying out loud? Does Shahak say so?

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Belief is a matter of... er... belief. In your article you use a set of keywords, like zionists, neocons, Rothschild, Cheney, Murdoch, oil, cabal, false flag etc, that are the standard fodder of a trailer trash run-of-the-mill "anti-Zionist" . You list our lesser, puny really, operators like these and consider yourself an owner of some deep knowledge? And what about King of Saudi Arabia, the Pope, the British Royals etc etc, who you don't even dream about in your worst nightmares?

Talking about a (microscopic really) test drilling on Golan? When the whole world is our oyster? Come on, Harry. You are really insulting us.

And by the way, the whole crapola about oil on the Golan is a smoke screen. Check out the number 238, if it means anything to you.

And think about why I am allowed to talk freely about all this, Gary. Maybe you are too late to this wedding?

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Yinon wrote: This world, with its ethnic
minorities, its factions and internal crises, which is astonishingly
self-destructive, as we can see in Lebanon, in non-Arab Iran and now also in
Syria, is unable to deal successfully with its fundamental problems and does not
therefore constitute a real threat against the State of Israel in the long run,
but only in the short run where its immediate military power has great import.
In the long run, this world will be unable to exist within its present framework
in the areas around us without having to go through genuine revolutionary
changes. The Moslem Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put
together by foreigners (France and Britain in the Nineteen Twenties), without
the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. It was
arbitrarily divided into 19 states, all made of combinations of minorites and
ethnic groups which are hostile to one another, so that every Arab Moslem state
nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within, and in some a civil war is
already raging.


Lebanon's total dissolution
into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world including
Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that
track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously
unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front
in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states
serves as the primary short term target. http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/2013/09/a-strategy-for-israel-in-nineteen.html

That was in 1982, and Yinon called for regime change then! As far as oil, Israel recently granted Genie Energy the rights to explore Golan Heights oil. It is political. Israel wants Syria broken up. And America obediently tries to do what Israel wants. That is fact, Snoop.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Ach, Gary, but you didn't say anything new so far. For instance, not a single word why broken up Syria is so good for anyone and why do you think that some puny oil reserves under the Golan should excite anyone, aside of you, of course.

Yinon my foot. Small, too small, Gary. Think the whole world... Think about the legacy of the Elders and what they planned for year 2000. And where we are. Or, rather, where you are...

P.S. And no more links, Gary. Links will be excises mercilessly from now on.