Is it really still on the table with Israeli settlers now being half of the current population here? Seems like the "best" politically they can do is to promise some development in close to border areas, and good peace deal that relinquishes most of Golan Heights to Israel - but how can Syria's new government get support for that?
Syria war thread
- Thread starter Happysin
- Start date
Israel continues its negotiations with a potentially friendly new Syrian government, hitting a Syrian ammo dump in Tartus in an attack that registered as a magnitude 3 on the Richter scale, three times the size of the Beirut blast.
See, this is part of the problem, why there is no clear cut good solution there, neither on the "strike" vs "no strike and wait" side:
It is far from certain the groups representing an at least neutral/peaceful cooperation stance will win out. Hence there is a certain understandable desire to take out certain assets in case they do not, and at a time an opportunity where the diplomatic repercussions would be less severe than later.
My personal instinct says that if a peaceful cooperation government solidifies power, they will be able to get past those strikes, seeing as a state of war still obtained and the strikes where mostly limited against military hardware, as long as Israel pays up in some way. Likewise, I have the feeling that Israel would be willing to pay in that situation.
The problem is I think secondary to the question of dirt and settlement of dirt, especially now that since Israel has destroyed much of the remaining conventional military capability they have also undercut most arguments for retaining an additional bufferzone; more, if a genuinely peaceful government comes to power even the current situation on the Golan may become difficult, seeing as it was kinetically demilitarised by the IDF.
I honestly have much less confidence, and much more worry, about the Israeli government's ability to control their own 'manifest destiny' idiot settlers and the obstacles to peace they'd produce than about the airstrikes.
The later is something that reasonable people can hash out at the peace table; the former is much harder.
It’s showing up on NASA’s fire map as well:
34°55'31"N 35°59'27"E (very clearly an ammo dump on google earth— lots of dispersed sheds or bunkers, single checkpoint entrance).
ETA image:
Last edited:
Today? Probably not.
It's noteworthy that even during the civil war, when you'd expect all factions to be busy fighting one another, there were quite a few cases of Assad's army and IIRC some of the other factions (not SDF, Druze or SNA, and not counting HizbAllah missile/UAV/ATGM attacks) shelling Jewish & Druze villages and towns in the Israel-held Golan, with no provocation whatsoever.
Israel mostly ignored it, but the reckoning is due now.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
The HTS has at best potential to be a neutral gov't, not a friendly one, until they prove otherwise.
These are full-bore terrorist jihadists, who split from Al-Qaeda, and in addition to targeting civilians during the civil war, used all the common radical Islamic rhetoric about "retaking Jerusalem" (that's a quote from Al-Julani in 2018, footnote 10 here). There's a reason why they've been designated as a terrorist organization by the US, the UK and the UN Security Council (which means noone vetoed it).
Maybe they've reformed? Maybe. We'll wait and see.
They have not made any overtures to Israel that I know of.
None of the Israeli attacks in Syria this past week have targeted HTS, or any other faction. Only Syrian Army strategic equipment & facilities.
Assad has claimed on Telegram that he waited until the last minute, even after rebels entered Damascus.
Then Russians told him he should evacuate, when his military stopped fighting. He had moved to an airbase in the northern part of the city after the rebels were approaching the capital.
Then Russians told him he should evacuate, when his military stopped fighting. He had moved to an airbase in the northern part of the city after the rebels were approaching the capital.
Based on what's come out about him, perhaps he was trying to gather as much loot as possible before fleeing, since he knew it would be the last change he would have to get it.
I'm pretty sure that like most dictators, he had plenty of wealth amassed and stored outside the country.
Probably, but given sanctions and increased scrutiny on Russia it may be challenging for him to access much of said wealth.
Assad didn't even tell his brother or cousins, one of which was reportedly killed trying to escape, he was bailing on the country.
www.ctvnews.ca
It appears Assad's wife was being treated for cancer in Moscow shortly before the uprising, and his son defending his doctoral thesis (maybe he will get/need to use it rather than follow in the family business?).
www.france24.com
Assad's final hours in Syria: Deception, despair and flight
Bashar al-Assad confided in almost no one about his plans to flee Syria as his reign collapsed. Instead, aides, officials and even relatives were deceived or kept in the dark, more than a dozen people with knowledge of the events told Reuters.
It appears Assad's wife was being treated for cancer in Moscow shortly before the uprising, and his son defending his doctoral thesis (maybe he will get/need to use it rather than follow in the family business?).
A palace in shock: Bashar al-Assad's final moments in Syria
Hours before rebel forces seized Damascus and toppled his government on Sunday, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was already out of the country, telling hardly anyone, five former officials told AFP.
Could be, but I doubt anyone here would lose sleep over it or contribute to a GoFundMe for him.
While his father was called the Butcher of Damascus (directly responsible for ~50K targeted civilian deaths via chemical warfare in El Hama in 1982, and probably 200K-300K overall), Bashar's responsible for about twice as many.
Striking guarantees that those who say Israel is hostile to Syria and can't be trusted will be seen as realists.
Trump was somewhat clear today on Syria. He said 'it's time to move on.' He said that he believes Turkey and Erdogan control the provisional government in Syria. He has no interest in facing the Turkish military because they are in far better shape than Russia's. And given that he had just talked to Netanyahu, I assume he told him the same thing. Israel would lose in a fight with the Turkish military. Turkey has 420 combat planes and they have an 500,000 strong army. They have 2600 tanks and they have nearly 5000 combat vehicles. Israel would be insane to try and take on the Turkish military.
Reading between the lines, if Israel and Turkey want to make a deal to carve up Syria so that Israel can finally make the map on its coin a reality, he has no problem with it. As long as they don't attack Israel, he's good. And I don't think he's interested in supporting Israel's expansionist plans... but we will see... I assume it's not just up to him.
Not quite so clear cut, though certainly this will generate further anti-Israel hostility in some quarters. But don't forget that those weapons depots being destroyed are the ones that were used to kill more than 300,000 Syrian civilians. There have been (AFAICT) no attacks by Israel on any of the rebel groups weapons caches or equipment.
And if you watch the videos and interviews inside Syria, there is a weird sort of trust (not lack of hostility, but a kind of trust) being displayed toward Israel. As Israeli bombs go off in the background, no one screams or runs for cover (as they did back when it was Assad's bombs going off). They've heard that Israel is bombing Assad's weapons caches, and they believe that is what is happening and don't display any apparent fear that civilian targets might be hit.
"as long as Israel pays up in some way"?
I think you're being very generous in your opinion of Israel, I can't see Netanyahu and the Israeli gov't paying a single cent or making a single concession judging on ... I was about to say "recent history" but it goes back quite a while.
What recent history? Syria attacked Israel with no provocation in 1948, 1967 and 1973, losing thrice but causing a lot of casualties. Syria encouraged "Palestinian" terrorists to base themselves in Syria. The various Syrian governments also shelled towns and villages within Israel for decades -- including during the civil war --, and tried to move the channel of a major tributary of the Jordan River, in order to starve Israel of water (this was before the Golan was taken).
Assad Jr. attempted to build nuclear weapons which would have immediately been used against Israel. He also turned Syria into a major support site and ammo warehouse for IRGC and HizbAllah missiles and other weaponry aimed at Israel.
Syria has consistently up to now refused all peace talks, direct or mediated, since 1948 .
So it's not Israel which has to make any concessions whatsoever.
From my PoV, Losing 2/3 of the Golan (a third is still under Syrian control) is a pretty cheap price to pay.
We'll see what the new temporary government does in this respect, if it manages to rule the entire country, which IMO is doubtful.
Yah, for all my issues with Israel on other fronts, I'm not sure I can blame them for their actions regarding Syria. If anything, blowing up ammo dumps and vocally establishing a DMZ should give the rebel factions huge incentive to hurry up and establish their position WRT Israel. Not saying it would automatically be diplomatic (that is a risk of Israel's current approach, pissing off enough of the factions), but it would be unified and official. And that's missing right now.
Didn't Israel position themselves in the previously established DMZ? The one both sides were supposed to stay out of?
Sure sure, no provocation at all, other than settling on and continuing to hold stolen and illegally occupied land.
Yes, and one that in this specific moment I totally understand why Israel would prefer to move while they can.
Note, I'm not trying to make moral argument, I'm not sure there is one anywhere. I am saying Israel's actions as a state determined to secure itself here seem perfectly reasonable and justifiable in light of their history with Syria up to this point.
I can't actually say I disagree. I may disagree with the degree of response, but I can't really fault the response.
I was more replying to the part where you mentioned establishing a DMZ. Since they already had one and all.
It would not surprise me if the new expanded DMZ is the one used going forward.
Yah, I had considered quibbling over the degree of response, but decided that I don't know the facts on the ground or the other details enough to really have those arguments. So for me, the closest I can get is saying "I think Israel is directionally correct, and I don't feel comfortable armchair quaterbacking this specific conflict" (especially when there are so many more conflicts I can go quibble about
)Remember this guy and this heart warming story from CNN?
Turns out the guy was an intelligence officer in Assad’s regime and recently jailed for extortion related charges. The whole thing was a lie.
This surprises you? That CNN wouldn't let the truth get in the way of a good story?
It certainly looked like propaganda from the outset. A well groomed man in clean clothes, oblivious to the prison getting emptied and hiding under a blanket instead of shouting for help? It sure fooled a few people though.
I was talking about the period before 1967. What land did Israel "steal" from Syria before 1967?
Last edited:
Israel's Ambassador to the UN has specifically informed the UN that Israle's incursion into the DMZ (officially called "area of separation" in the 1974 ceasefire agreement) is temporary, a result of armed Syrian HTS militants entering the DMZ first and trying to occupy UNDOF positions by firing at UN troops (a violation of the agreement), and that Israel will withdraw from the DMZ as soon as the situation in the adjoining Syrian territory settles down.Yah, I had considered quibbling over the degree of response, but decided that I don't know the facts on the ground or the other details enough to really have those arguments. So for me, the closest I can get is saying "I think Israel is directionally correct, and I don't feel comfortable armchair quaterbacking this specific conflict" (especially when there are so many more conflicts I can go quibble about
Do we have kooks who already want to announce an annexation of Syria? Yes. But they don't make policy' just like David Duke doesn't.
Is Netanyahu a liar? Sure. But he has no motive to add yet another warfront by annexing more Syrian territory. Unlike his coalition partners, he is 100% an opportunist and has no actual political views of his own.
His main hope for the past few years (since the peace accords with the UAE and Bahrain) has been to conclude a similar accord with Saudia Arabia. An agreement with Syria would be far more significant and useful, and help his weakening popularity.
It will take a while to figure out whether such an agreement is possible, because actual negotiations can't take place before there's a stable permanent Syrian gov't. And that will take a while to wait and see.
Just a correction -- they're not religious Zionists, they're messianic religious racists, who misappropriated the term for an entire sector of the population (most of that sector doesn't support them) for their party.
None of their beliefs accord with the principles of Zionism (which, to start with, is a secular national movement by definition).
This doesn't work. Definitions don't work that way, they are, after all, descriptive rather than prescriptive. Religious Zionism dates back to at least 1862. The reality is that Zionism has always had a contingent of religious Jews who wanted a religious state. That secular Zionists would prefer this to be false doesn't change anything about this fact.
They are idiots, but that’s not for this thread. That group, however you wish to call it (settlers movement, etc.), does envision pushing out the formal border, and Syria can’t oppose right now.
Didn't they say the same thing about Gaza and the West Bank? I'd be shocked if Israel didn't annex at least a part of Syria.
Which raises the question: who should we believe, Netanyahu, who said "Golan is ours forever" or, Israel's Ambassador to the UN? I'm going to go with the guy closer to the center of power in Israel. It turns out that one of those kooks you are talking about is also the guy leading your country and very much does make policy.
Don't get me wrong, I like what Israel is officially saying here (or...I don't find it any worse than status quo anyway) but I'll believe it's a temporary incursion the moment we get independent news reports confirming the actual withdrawal, and not a moment earlier.
The Russians still claim they are working out a deal to stay, but they are looking very prepared to leave. Lots of equipment lined up at the port and airbase ready to go. Some reports say they have been given a month to leave, and that they may be looking to move to Libya.
www.twz.com
Satellite Imagery Shows Ramp-Up In Russian Forces Massing At Bases In Syria For Withdrawal
Russia appears to be accelerating its pull-out of forces and materiel from Syria with the final fate of critical bases still in question.
www.twz.com
The thing about sending your military into a DMZ is it's not a DMZ anymore. It's a treaty violation.
Several large Russian cargo planes are already known to have flown to Libya last week. It's not a waypoint for flying to Russia, so there some evidence Russia reached an agreement with Libya on setting up a base there.The Russians still claim they are working out a deal to stay, but they are looking very prepared to leave. Lots of equipment lined up at the port and airbase ready to go. Some reports say they have been given a month to leave, and that they may be looking to move to Libya.
Satellite Imagery Shows Ramp-Up In Russian Forces Massing At Bases In Syria For Withdrawal
Russia appears to be accelerating its pull-out of forces and materiel from Syria with the final fate of critical bases still in question.
We're getting off-topic, so just to address the question, nope.
There's been no statements whatsoever about any formal goals or time limit for the Gaza invasion. Only Netanyahu & the Israeli cabinet blathering about "absolute victory", without saying what constitutes that.
Re Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. West Bank)? There hasn't been any ground invasion. Just cleanup of Hamas/PiS terror cells. The largest current operation there is one by the PA itself:
https://apnews.com/article/israel-p...slamic-jihad-131b0b0d82608142d979919330ab96c5
Of course, but armed militants from Syria, at least some belonging to HTS (the current temporary gov't) violated it first by entering the DMZ and taking over several old abandoned Syrian fortifications near Quneitra and several UNDOF positions by force (which the IDF helped UNDOF to reoccupy).
You want to claim that was not a Syrian gov't action? Go ahead. The entity the ceasefire agreement was concluded with, the Ba'athist gov't, no longer exists.
But the point remains that Israel can't abide the presence of armed jihadists in any strategic location.
Last edited: