Skip to main content

View Diary: Syria strikes show the paradox of Israeli power for U.S. (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Disregard all the wordy conjecture. (5+ / 0-)

    The diarist has it just right when he says,  "the Israeli strikes were narrowly focused on keeping Iranian missiles and anti-aircraft weapons out of the hands of the Tehran-backed Hezbollah militias in Lebanon."

    You must give the Israelis credit when their national security and the safety of their citizens is at stake, they don't over-think the project, they get it done.

    They leave the bloviating and conjecture to others.    

    •  Unfortunately for both the Israeli justification (0+ / 0-)

      and your argument, Hezbollah has had the missiles in question (either Syrian M600 or the Iranian equivalent, Fateh-110) at least since 2009.

      I really have no idea why Israel launched any of their recent raids into Syria, but it was not to prevent Hezbollah from acquiring novel advanced missiles.

      •  I'm amazed that you have such inside knowledge (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund, leftynyc, JNEREBEL

        of Israeli military plans.

        It is apparently clear that the destruction of these advanced missiles was to prevent their being launched against Israeli civilian targets.

      •  Fewer missiles better than more missiles (0+ / 0-)

        Interdicting supply is still a legitimate military tactic even if the foe already has made some supply runs. So if Hexbollah has these missiles now Israel may still wish to prevent them from getting more.

        When I say legitimate, I mean in the sense that one side might legitimately want to see a thing done. That it makes sense from that point of view.

        That being said, who knows exactly what is the Israeli plan.

    •  That's the pretext (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lepanto, whizdom, Brecht, protectspice

      but it makes little sense. The strikes were made on military installations around Damascus. Don't believe everything you read or see or hear from the MSM.

      It appears to be an act of desperation in the face of recent gains by the Syrian military and growing fear of the population of the extremist jihadist factions who compose most of the opposition to the government.

      Israel would like to see Syria destroyed as a functioning state as was done to Iraq. This has been one of their objectives for more than a decade.

      Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

      by truong son traveler on Mon May 06, 2013 at 11:17:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do people just make shit up? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nospinicus, JNEREBEL

        To fit their narrative? Blowing up Iraq was not something Israel wanted. Iraq was stuck in a box and couldn't do anything. Bush was warned by Israelis AGAINST occupying the country. They knew it was a stupid idea what would be of no benefit to them, and it hasn't been. Same with the destruction of the functioning Syrian state. Hostilities have been few and far between over the last couple decades, the relationship between Israel and some of its other neighbors are far more tenuous. Dissolving functioning states has not been particularly good for Israel, which is one of the reasons why they've never been terribly supportive of change. Enemy you know v enemy you don't know. Syria is no different.

        •  Nothing was made up (0+ / 0-)

          It is history. This is from 1996.

          Link

          "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."

          Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

          by truong son traveler on Tue May 07, 2013 at 11:08:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nice job citing something meaningless (0+ / 0-)

            Clean Break was rejected by Netanyahu. So as far as Israeli policy is concerned, it's a meaningless piece of paper. More importantly, almost nothing that Israel has done in the last 15 years indicates that any Clean Break policies were adopted. So you've pointed to a meaningless piece of paper that is conflict with actual history.

            •  do you expect people to believe (0+ / 0-)

              that it was pure coincidence that "removing Saddam from power" and rolling back Syria had become US policy?

              There is interest overlap there but there is more to it than that.

              Was it simply coincidence that Syria is being attacked using proxy forces exactly as called for in that policy paper?

              The Clean Break policies were adopted by the US largely through the influence of neocons with close ties to Israel and an some overlapping interests, security for Israel and the Path to Persia and global primacy for the US.

              Plausible dependability on behalf of Israel does not work so well in these times. People are become more aware of what is going on and they are not pleased with these policies which they see are not in their own interests.

              Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

              by truong son traveler on Thu May 09, 2013 at 03:01:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Look who's making shit up (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site