Syria / Israel

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Arik, Sep 17, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Interesting times, especially with recent hightened tensions on the Heights with exercises and troop movements on both sides! (Echoes of the Yom Kippur war at end of this week).

    As an aside - Shimon Peres made an interesting televised statement a few days ago (during an interview) that the issue with Syria is not so much the return of the Heights but Syrian (covert) control/influence over Lebanon.

    Edited - meant to put this post into the existing thread:
    http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=1520641#1520641
     
  2. Hi Arik! I can't remember uninteresting times in the ME. However personally I don't expect a war between Syria and Israel for many reasons.

    Syria is too weak. Moreover, a war initiated by Bashar Asad would be an excellent excuse to 'liberate' the country. Huge American army is quite near. Maybe in the future, after the withdrawal from Iraq, mr.Asad would regard military option but unlikely. His current position - a victim of 'Zionist agression' is much more profitable.

    So why do we see the tensions? Why does Israeli mass-meadia actively discuss laughable rumours about 'nuclear Syrian installations'? The answer is quite simple from my point of view.

    Israeli leadership have to negotiate with mr.Abbas. The peace agreement is impossible without painfull (for Israel) consessions. But the PM is too weak to make such a move. Mr.Olmert tries to postone the negotiations for as much as possible long period. And so called 'Syrian crisis' is designed to reflect attention from the negotiations.

    I don't exclude even some strikes by IAF in Syria. But it would not be a full scale war. It would be extremely unprofitable for Israel.
     
  3. posted this before, but relivent to the issue:

    http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1296


    I can think of 2 good reasons Syria might give it a go:

    1. They might really believe that, given Israel's performance last year, that if they can take the Hights in a shock action that they can hold on to them long enough to force a compromise. The 'young Turks' in the regime are not scared by Syria's past experiences with Israel.

    2. The pro-Iranian elements might see this as a chance to get rid of Assad: fight war, lose it, install a puppet regime under an army General. Syria would be shattered, but Iran would have a forward base against Israel.
     
  4. Neither can I! :eek: Life is never dull!

    I disagree about attention being diverted by using Syria from peace initiatives with the Pals. Sometimes when the global / domestic glare is elsewhere the politicians are more free to deal with other issues (talks with the Pals) without extreme public scrutiny. Also, other issues in the last year have made 'withdrawal' from the territories that much more difficult e.g. Hamas seizure of Gaza, the internal and ongoing Pal rift, the war in Lebanon, etc etc.

    Any war would be unprofitable for Israel (in human terms) but sometimes the background / conditions may dictate e.g. overt large troop movements with intent by the enemy, acquisition of nukes or WMD, etc. etc.
     
  5. Maybe. Btw, the strike in Syria (though unconfirmed) boosted popularity of mr.Olmert (if he was ever popular figure). Thus it could be an answer. So called tensions with Syria are no more than self-ad of some Israeli politicians.

    I strongly doubt that Syria has own nuclear program in any form. So the big fuss about it is rather a smoke screen.
     
  6. KGBR - Rather like the rise in the stock market today, Olmerts' ratings could only go up after some 'good' news, but I doubt whether he is willing to risk wider scale conflict for the sake of his ratings on this matter.
    To get his ratings to the top are you suggesting he went for all-out war where he would have to perform well also? :)

    Smoke screen - I dont think so, but we will have to agree to disagree.
     
  7. I agree with your bold, however, I don't think it's the west using the smoke screen but rather Iran using it's old pal to smuggle in goods. Odds are Iran is looking to build missiles capable of carrying nuclear material and funny how the shipment from north korea in question came shortly after the summit they attended.
     
  8. So, Arik, what is your explanation? Indeed, there is a lot of news involving Syria and Israel last few days. There are many unexpected (or expected) events. There is a big fuss around allegation about Syrian nuclear program.

    But why? What is the cause? I believe that Syria hasn't made anything special. I see the causes inside Israel. What do you think?
     
  9. KGBR - I dont have anymore precise details on the nature of the target then any other person here nor do I have a hotline to the Kiriya in Tel Aviv!!

    However, I would (again) say that an IAF mission on Syrian soil short of 'all out' war (as is the current situation between the 2 countries) would be used for the destruction of a high importance target such as non-conventional arms (amongst other things).
     
  10. I see. So, Arik, you believe that the Syrians hid something, something very important.
     
  11. :? some people believed that iraq had wmd and could attack western interests/israel in minutes look at iraq now! Still no wmd's found i believe?

    some rednecks in a house (which may be white) will hear that rumour and get all sweaty and excited . No smoke without fire they think and out comes TEAM AMERICA ......f**k yeah !!!

    Has syria got oil? not that that would be a reason to invade or anything :twisted:
     
  12. I think you guys are right. Syria is a peaceful nation and being repressed by Israel in order for the big bad west to come in and suck up all the oil.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20870381/


    Oops, that was the link to the 8th anti-Syrian lawmaker being assasinated.
     
  13. In this country, was it:
    ?

    Syria isn't the only country escalating tensions in the region; nor is it the only to meddle in Lebanese politics with traagic results.(though it is the only one to have stopped the Lebanese Civil War).
     
  14. The West went to Iraq for various reasons, but none that meant imminent/immediate danger to it's own citizens.

    KGBR - what are you driving at?
     
  15. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    It has a border with Iraq and is on the Med; strategically important enough for grand designs? Saves sailing oil thru' the gulf and paying for the canal?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.