Meyrav Wurmser “Neocons Expected Israel to Attack Syria”

Neocons: We expected Israel to attack Syria
Ynet, 16 Dec. 2006
by Yitzhak Benhorin
(Thanks to Joe M.)

They are a unified group of American intellectuals, who held key positions in Bush administration and were blamed for getting US into Iraq. Most of them are Jews, so they are obviously accused of risking America in favor of Israel. Israeli Meyrav Wurmser claims that if situation is bad, Israelis are also to blame

WASHINGTON – It hasn't been a good year for neocons, that group of conservative American intellectuals pulling some strings of US policy, particularly during the George W. Bush administration.

The strongest indictment against them is the war in Iraq, a quagmire in which the US is currently stuck up to its neck. And as Bush's days in the White House grow numbered, they are leaving one by one.

Among the few remaining neocons is David Wurmser, an advisor for Vice President Dick Cheney on Middle  Eastern affairs. Wurmser is a Middle East expert, just like his wife, Israeli Meyrav Wurmser, a researcher at the conservative Hudson Institute.

Meyrav Wurmser was also one of the co-founders of MEMRI, which tracks Arab leaders and translating their political statements from Arabic to English.

Despite the fact that many neocons are no longer part of the government, it turns out they're still one big happy family, who make sure to remain in touch.

Many are Jews, who share a love for Israel . Some of the accusations against the government regarding the war in Iraq is that it was undertaken primarily for Israel's sake and that the attack on Iraq was actually an Israeli objective.

In an interview with Ynet, Dr. Meyrav Wurmser refutes the accusations and criticism.

"Since I'm an Israeli in the gang, you wouldn't believe what's been written about me," she said. "That I'm proof of the covert neoconservative connection with Israel and the Mossad."

What are you trying to achieve?

"We believe in a strong and active American foreign policy. America is a good force in the world, a nation that believes in freedom. We believe in exporting American ideas of freedom and democracy, to promote greater stability."

Did you, in practice, bring about the war in Iraq?

"We expressed ideas, but the policy in Iraq was taken out of neocon hands very quickly. The idea was that America has a war on terror and that the only actual place for coping with it is in the Middle East and that a fundamental change would come through a change in leadership. We had to start somewhere.

"The objective was to change the face of the Middle East. But it was impossible to create a mini-democracy amidst a sea of dictatorships looking to destroy this poor democracy, and thus, where do insurgents in Iraq come from? From Iran and Syria ."

Should they have been conquered?

"No. There was a need for massive political action, of threats and pressure on these governments, financial pressure, for example. The sanctions on Syria were nothing. There was a period of time when the Syrians were afraid that they were next. It would have been possible to use this momentum in a smarter way. There's no need to go in militarily."

Everyone feels beaten after last 5 years

At their prime, the neocons held the reigns of American decision making. In the Pentagon, there were Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, and Harold Rhode, a senior Pentagon advisor on Islam.

In the vice president's office were Louis Libby and John Hannah. Richard Perle headed the committee advising to the Pentagon. In the White House were Deputy National Security Adviser for Global Democracy Strategy Elliott Abrams and Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, who later became the US ambassador to the UN.

Iraq. Today it's already a disaster

According to Wurmser's description, the group is comprised of academics, most of them lacking operational experience, who became part of the Bush administration but failed to get their ideas through bureaucracy.

"These are intellectuals who came with great ideas, in which I still believe, but did not find a way to promote their beliefs in the complexities of bureaucracy," she says.

Your people held senior positions in the Pentagon. Didn’t Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith implement your theories?

"The final decisions were no in their hands. In the Pentagon, the decisions were in the hands of the military, and the political leadership had a lot of clashes with the military leadership."

Did the military leadership ask for more soldiers in Iraq?

"Rumsfeld prevented that. He was a failure. The State Department opposed the neocons' stances. Also John Bolton, who is also part of the family, and was no. 4 at the State Department under Colin Powell, was incapable of passing decisions…

"Powell curbed our ideas and they did not pass. There was a lot of frustration over the years in the administration because we didn’t feel we were succeeding.

"Now Bolton left (the UN – Y.B.) and there are others who are about to leave. This administration is in its twilight days. Everyone is now looking for work, looking to make money… We all feel beaten after the past five years… We miss the peace and quiet and writing books…

"When you enter the administration you have to keep your mouth shut. Now many will resume their writing… Now, from the outside, they will be able to convey all the criticism they kept inside."

In the meantime you left the US inside Iraq?

"We did not bring the US into Iraq in such a way. Our biggest war which we lost was the idea that before entering Iraq we must train an exile Iraqi government and an Iraqi military force, and hand over the rule to them immediately after the occupation and leave Iraq. That was our idea and it was not accepted."

Your man was Ahmed Chalabi, who was later suspected of spying for Iran?

"That is true, but we didn’t want him as a dictator but as a person in a government that will act democratically… We must help the current democratic government. The borders with Iran and Syria should have been blocked immediately when we entered Iraq. Now it's already a disaster."

Why didn’t you attack Syria?

Many of Wurmser's friends believe the disaster is not only in Iraq, but in the entire region. They are also very frustrated over the way in which Israel embarked on the war against Hizbullah this summer, and on the way it returned from it.

"Hizbullah defeated Israel in the war. This is the first war Israel lost," Dr. Wurmser declares.

IDF in Lebanon

Is this a popular stance in the administration, that Israel lost the war?

"Yes, there is no doubt. It's not something one can argue about it. There is a lot of anger at Israel."

What caused the anger?

"I know this will annoy many of your readers… But the anger is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians. Instead of Israel fighting against Hizbullah, many parts of the American administration believe that Israel should have fought against the real enemy, which is Syria and not Hizbullah."

Did the administration expect Israel to attack Syria?

"They hoped Israel would do it. You cannot come to another country and order it to launch a war, but there was hope, and more than hope, that Israel would do the right thing. It would have served both the American and Israeli interests.

"The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space… They believed that Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the thought was that its strategic and important ally should be hit."

"It is difficult for Iran to export its Shiite revolution without joining Syria, which is the last nationalistic Arab country. If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran, that it would have weakened it and changes the strategic map in the Middle East.

"The final outcome is that Israel did not do it. It fought the wrong war and lost. Instead of a strategic war that would serve Israel's objectives, as well as the US objectives in Iraq. If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended."

Wurmser says that what most frustrates her is hearing people close to decision makers in Israel asking her if the US would have let Israel attack Syria.

"No one would have stopped you. It was an American interest. They would have applauded you. Think why you received so much time and space to operate. Rice was in the region and Israel embarrassed her with Qana, and still Israel got more time. Why aren't they reading the map correctly in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem?"

Comments (96)


Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

51. ausamaa said:

Through out the years, Syria was the ONE country that represented a real MILITARY danger to Israel. The proximity, the influence, the ability to mobilize the Arab street, its support for Hizbullah, the Palestinian resistance and its stubborn attachment to Arabism. You, I, the World, Bush, and Israel know that Syria is the real OBSTACLE they have to cross to get to get to where they want the Middle East to be. And they know that Syria is THE real agent provocator not the 2000 miles away overblown Iranian threat.

Taking Syria out of the picture would be a real prize to Israel. It will be the mother of all victories. And a defeat of Syria will HAVE a domino effect on all the ones who say NO in the area, starting from Lebanon, Hamas, Fataeh, the Iraqi resistansce…etc.

Yet, and since the 1973 war (when Israel shifted the bulk of its forces from Sinai to the Golan front to hold the developing Syrian attack at the expense of loosing Egyptian territory), Israel has NEVER tried to seriously mess with Syria militarily. Despite some very painfull blows it suffered at the hands of Syria’s allies. Even during its last humilation in Lebanon, it went to extreme lengths to stay away from the well known “Red Lines”. Its politicians kept “assuring” Syria that Israel has no intent of attacking Syria despite “provocatory statements” at the time by Syrian officials “warned” that if Israel came close “we will respond”.

What does that mean? And since the all-mighty Israel knows that Syria is the real impediment to its plans, why has it not attacked Syria during the past thirty years?

Very simply, it means that while Israel enjoys a well known military superiority over Syria, yet it does not dare attack Syria. The end results of such a confrontation can not be predicted, to say the least. And whatever unguaranteed results Israel might hope for would come at a very steep price.A narrow and well defended battle front, a will to fight fiercly, and the ability to retaliate devastatingly. That what Israel will face if it attacks Syria. And it is not willing to take the chance or pay the price. With full US support or not. And if ever there was a doubt, what happened in Iraq was a good example, add to it what is been happening in the west bank and Gaza, and finally, the great humilation at the hands of the resistance in Lebanon in the July war.

So for God’s sake, enough worry about Israel attacking Syria. It is not a cake walk. At least not for an overblown egotistic Monster once called Israel who got its claws trimmed by the Palestinan children, and at the hands of the few hundreds of Hizbullah fighters.

Simply said, if Israel could afford it, it would have done it. Without a second thoght. The nation that shoots at unarmed children in Gaza, would not hesitate to attack a dangerous enemy next door if it thought it can win. Even when encouraged/begged by the US to do so. But as it seems; while the “means” are ther, yet, neither the “will” nor the “ability” or the “courage” to attack Syria are there.

The saying goes: Put Up or Shut Up. And Israel is no exception. It is Shutting Up. Which is the smart thing to do.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 7:32 pm

 

52. majedkhaldoun said:

I love to see blood ,as long as,it is not mine

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 8:08 pm

 

53. Ehsani2 said:

Dubai Jazz,

I also find Bashar’s visit to Dubai very interesting. The U.A.E is not on the way to Moscow. For Bashar to take such a trip at this time is not insignificant. I am particularly thrilled that he was briefed on the amazing list of economic development projects underway in that country. Bashar could not be anything but impressed. Let us hope he will catch the economic reform bug during that stop-over.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 8:19 pm

 

54. simohurtta said:

Akbar not even you can’t deny the fact that Israeli economy functions much with US aid and its special relations with USA. The figures are astonishing even to today when Israel is an industrialized, rather wealthy country. For what needs Israel foreign aid and a lions share (30 %) of US foreign aid? A real welfare state, isn’t it also in you US republican “mind”. Well seems that welfare is good for Israelis but not for Americans. It must be difficult to explain that to voters back home.

Much of the Israeli economy is based on Golan’s and West Bank’s water in chemical and agricultural sectors. Israeli defence industry has benefited from joint ventures with USA, own test ground and a rather “liberal” policy in choosing customers.

The more serious consequence from a peace would be that western and eastern investors would pass Tel Aviv and invest to the 300 million Arab markets. Muslim countries have the oil and growth potential (if they somehow manage to unite their “ranks”). Israel will never became the financial and industrial “hub” of Middle East. Not after it has done.

You Akbar Palace often speak about the religious extremism in Arab / Muslim countries. What have you to say to this story?
Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/801449.html

Seems that Israel has her fair share of religious extremists. Maybe these kind of news are not popular among US neocons and not told to the US public.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 8:50 pm

 

55. Akbar Palace said:

ausamaa said:

“So for God’s sake, enough worry about Israel attacking Syria. It is not a cake walk. At least not for an overblown egotistic Monster once called Israel who got its claws trimmed by the Palestinan children, and at the hands of the few hundreds of Hizbullah fighters.”

Ausamma,

If Syria wants peace with Israel, I think that’s preferrable. If Syria doesn’t want peace with Israel, I guess that’s OK too. If Syria and Lebanon want to continue the state of war with Israel, then things get more complicated.

Israel will not allow a neighboring country to arm itself to the teeth with the very real possibility that it will use this weaponry to shed meyhem on her territory. So if the present conditions continue, there is no guarantee Israel will not have to confront the “resistance” in Lebanon or in Syria.

Morevoer, now that Israel got its “claws trimmed by the Palestinan children” (who somehow have a great interest in model rocketry made of steel casings), the same thing applies. Israel will not sit idly by while communities continue to get shelled.

I hope that makes sense to you.

simohurtta,

I was just responding to your question:

“What would Israel be if there would be peace with Syria, Lebanon and Palestinians?”

They’d be quite fine. Economically and socially.

I highly recommend it for everyone.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 9:19 pm

 

56. Akbar Palace said:

‘Seems that Israel has her fair share of religious extremists. Maybe these kind of news are not popular among US neocons and not told to the US public.”

simohurtta,

I know how important it is to discredit Israel on this forum (we can all thank Professor Josh and the Arab News Media for that), but when a civil war hits Israel like it is in Iraq, Palestine and like it may again in Lebanon, it will be in the news here in the US. I can assure you.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 9:23 pm

 

57. Ford Prefect said:

I just returned to find out that my post from last night did not make it, so here it is again: I have no clue who Akbar Palace is, but Innocent_Criminal claimed that we have the same IP address. Funny, even simple IP traceroute lookup could produce such an error. Well, let’s hope that the highly regarded Innocent-Criminal (and I really do like his/her postings) does not work for the NSA. We could be in real trouble if so! No, I have nothing to do with Akbar’s hapless thoughts. He ideas are as deceitful as the Ba’athists – but nevertheless I hope that he is a harmless mammal.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 9:28 pm

 

58. MSK said:

Dear Ausamaa,

could explain to the group just WHY Israel should have wanted to get into another war with Syria?

Israel holds the Golan, and thus the high ground as well as much of the water source for Lake Tiberias and the Jordan River.

In all its “military encounters” with the Syrian Army, during the wars of ’67 and ’73 and then during the Lebanese Civil War (particularly in ’82) the Israeli Army has decisively defeated and embarrassed the Syrian Army.

Syria alone has never been a military threat to Israel – until the Camp David Accord with Egypt Israel had to fear a simultaneous two-front attack (which Egypt & Syria failed to successfully execute in ’73). But after the Egyptian threat was no longer Israel only faced Syria.

Lebanese and Palestinian militias are no threat to Israel as a state, and are not seen as such. Hisbollah’s katyushas are bothersome, but cannot threaten Israel on an existential level.

So, I am really puzzled by your assertions. Now, you might not have a particularly good education about the history of the area, but I suppose that this summer you watched the news: It wasn’t Israel that hastened to state that it would not attack Syria (quite to the contrary – threats to “punish” Syria were made all the time) but Syria that, when some stray missiles landed on the Syrian side of the Syria-Lebanon border north of the Beirut-Damascus Highway, immediately said that it was a mistake and that actually they probably didn’t even land inside Syria.

Btw, have you ever SEEN the Syrian Army?

–MSK

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 10:35 pm

 

59. Charles G. Coutinho, Ph. D. said:

For the edification of the Syriacomment.com readership is the following article in the Beirut Daily Star on a news conference by the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saudi Al-Faisal, on two topics which have concerned this readership lately: one, the possibility of Saudi belligerency of some type (overt or covert) if the USA were to withdraw from Iraq; two, the reasons for the resignation of the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, who is also the foreign minister’s brother (Nota bene: the following has not appeared yet on this online journal). So read and be edified fellow readers:

Riyadh ‘stands at an equal distance from all factions in Iraq’ – foreign minister

Compiled by Daily Star staff
Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister on Tuesday denied reports that the kingdom would step in to back the Sunnis in Iraq’s sectarian conflict in the event of a pullout by the United States. In a wide-ranging news conference, Prince Saudi al-Faisal confirmed that Riyadh’s ambassador to Washington has resigned, and he called on the Palestinians to abide by a truce.

“Since the beginning of the crisis in Iraq and the formation of the government … the kingdom has been saying that it stands at an equal distance from all Iraqi factions,” Prince Saud said. “We do not pose as guardians of one faction or sect,” he said.

His remarks follow repeated reports that Saudi Arabia might bankroll Iraq’s Sunnis against Iran-backed Shiites should US troops pull out swiftly and leave a raging civil war in the country.

“We cooperate with anyone who wants [to preserve] the unity … and independence of Iraq,” Saud said.

“We hope Iraqi citizens will be treated equally before the law in terms of rights and duties,” he said, apparently referring to complaints by Iraq’s Sunni Arabs that they are marginalized and discriminated against by government.

Saud also confirmed Tuesday that his brother Prince Turki al-Faisal had “presented his resignation,” as ambassador to Washington, “and it was accepted.”
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

It was a purely personal decision, Saud said.

Prince Turki, one of the most influential envoys in Washington and steward of the key and sometimes uneasy alliance between the US and the oil powerhouse, abruptly quit last week.

The shock resignation – after only 15 months on the job – sparked a flurry of speculation, ranging from claims that Turki was the victim of bureaucratic back-stabbing in Riyadh to suggestions that Saudi Arabia may be sending a message to Washington over its dismay with Iraq’s descent into chaos.

Prince Saud himself hinted that Turki might take a back seat, saying that he had served his country well “for a long period of time.”

On the ongoing Palestinian infighting, Prince Saud urged the Palestinians to overcome their differences to curb a slide into more violence. “We follow with intense concern the dangerous escalation witnessed on the Palestinian stage,” he said.

“We call on the brothers in Palestine to come together to … to end the Israeli occupation, the suffering of the Palestinian people and achieve their legitimate ambition for an independent state.” – AFP, Reuters
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 11:28 pm

 

60. Ehsani2 said:

Were Syria to enter an armed conflict with Israel, this is what one can expect:

– The skies will belong to Israel practically unopposed due to the vast superiority of their air force. The Syrian Air force is practically nonexistent.
– The story is the same when it comes to the two navies. There is simply no contest.
– The ground forces get a bit more interesting. Syria is known to possess close to 80 T72 tanks. It is also home to 30-40 Gazelles that are capable of targeting enemy tanks. On balance, the Israeli army will also end up winning a ground war when all is said and done.
– This leaves us with the latest weapon of choice-short and intermediate range missiles. One can argue that some could be fitted with chemical warheads too.

Should a war break out; Syria knows that its army is not up to the task. Instead, it is most likely going to resort to firing some of its missiles into the State of Israel. The question is would Syria dare send one of its serious missiles into an Israeli city? Should it come to this, Bashar will be keenly aware that this would only be his last shot as Israel’s response will be devastatingly predictable.

Well, not exactly his last shot. That would surely be reserved for Dimona!

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 12:39 am

 

61. Gibran said:

What’s all this nonsense about Syrian military might? Damascus will be a walkover to IDF. Anyone familiar with the area knows very well that the city is within firing range. Chemical weapons will confront Nuclear? You must be kidding. Why not go all the way and obliterate Latakia and the surrounding mountains with one shot? You think other Syrian cities will raise a finger? You have to understand Syrian mentality. When Hafez obliterated Hama, other Syrians shut their mouth up and submitted to brute force. Same thing will happen if Assad’s hometowns vaporize. Syrian people will then exhibit extreme politeness and submissiveness to the new power wielding force of the IDF. Remember the people of Syria can only be ruled by a thick stick!

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 1:08 am

 

62. Akbar Palace said:

Ehsani2 and Gobran,

Thank you for the doomsday scenarios. And yes, we all remember the Hama “incident”.

I don’t know about you guys, but instead of discussing chemical and nuclear weapons, tanks, and obliterating cities, wouldn’t you prefer to talk about accepting one another?

Jews accepting Palestinians, Palestinians accepting Jews, Syrians accepting Israelis and Israelis accepting Syrians and so forth and so on?

Call me naive, but I don’t believe people deserve to be oppressed, victimized, and brutalized generation after generation. And neither does the UNIVERASAL Declaration of Human Rights…

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 2:05 am

 

63. Gibran said:

Akbar,
I did not begin the thread. I only commented on the foolishness of those who started it by presenting the most likely scenario for such thinking. Your sentiments require a legitimate partner which does not exist at the moment.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 2:13 am

 

64. majedkhaldoun said:

the syrian air force does not exist,since Hafez Assad died.
the syrian people can only be controled by a thick stick,that is why France is still there.

the jews accept the palastinian, that is why Isreal is killing palastinian, destroying their homes,suffocating them, stealing their money,and not allowing them to transfer money,not even accepting their election,building high wall to keep them in big prison.
I love to see the jordan river called red river.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 2:52 am

 

65. norman said:

Israel will win a war with Syria only if Syria agrees to a stop of that war ,Israel can not occupy Syria and as long as Syria’s leaders have the will to fight Israel will be defeated ,the US with all it’s resources is not able to controle Iraq and in the road to leave ,Israel is much weaker than the US and a long time war with Syria will destroy Israel’s economy ,as we all know most of the Israeli army personals are resevists who can either work or fight and a long term war will keep them mobelised and destroy Israel’s economy and push the Israelies who are rich to leave Israel to the west.hopfully forever if the war lasts long enough for them to start a new life.ps,Syria should make it clear to Israel that any attack on any Syrian city will provoke an attack on Israeli ones not like what happened in 1973 when Damascus was attacked without retaliation,worrying about world openion.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 2:55 am

 

66. Gibran said:

Syrian airforce as well as the Syrian military died before Hafez died. Do you need a reminder? 1982 comic display of Syrian ‘military might’ in Lebanon.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 2:56 am

 

67. Gibran said:

Exactly. And Syria will raise its hands in surrender within one hour of beginning of hostilities. Isn’t Syria doing just that right now and there is no firing taking place? Has it not been doing that for the last 40 years?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 3:03 am

 

68. majedkhaldoun said:

no Gibran ,syrian people are not doing that

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 3:23 am

 

69. norman said:

You are right Majed , the syrian people will be as couragous as the Iraqies.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 3:32 am

 

70. Ehsani2 said:

Gentlemen,

There is no denying that the Syrian army is woefully ill-prepared to fight the IDF in a conventional war.

They do have the missiles however. The only way Syria would use them is if the regime felt that its days were numbered. Clearly, they may opt to do so as a last act of desperation. As many of you implied, Israel’s response to any serious missile attack would be devastating. In the past, Syria could bank on its Aran brothers to rush to its help. Given the current relationship, I am not sure anyone would show up.

On a different note, General Abizaid asked for additional navy carrier in the gulf today. Iran’s recent increased rhetoric and war exercises have not been taken lightly apparantly.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 3:46 am

 

71. Gibran said:

The argument is flawed because conventional missiles against nuclear is no deterence. Assuming it is for the sake of argument, the other party did not wave first use option; and it would be foolish to do so. Therefore, IDF should immediately resort to first use in its strategic planing in order to maintain the current non beligerent state. If Syria feels emboldened (even as a miscalculation), then the current state of non-hostilities will become endangered.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 5:06 am

 

72. Dubai Jazz said:

GIB-RAN yelps again:
“What’s all this nonsense about Syrian military might? Damascus will be a walkover to IDF.”
“Remember the people of Syria can only be ruled by a thick stick!”
….
Apart from the apparent subjectiveness in your comments, and the ostensible grudge you have for Syrian people. Which is all beyond me, I mean if you are all that pissed off with Syrians, why do you bother comment on Syrian issues? Let alone leaving a nasty comment on my own blog?
Now apart from all that, we should not forget the conclusions drawn from the July 2006 war, it is even closer in timeline than 1982. I know that Hezbollah’s gurrela fighters have different techniques than a conventional army like the Syrian army. However, and as Dr. Landis has suggested before, the Syrian amry is undoubtedly going to adopt those techniques, as it has proved to be viable.
The grave fiasco of the Israeli ground assault has raised lot of question marks about the readibility of the Israeli reservists and the capabilitiy of the Merkava tank as a spinal pillar of the IDF armored force. And it is not me claiming all that, it is the Israeli press itself.
…..So again, the “walkove” scenario is only an ingenuity of your puny mind.
BTW, if you are all that excited about Israel attacking Syria, why don’t you join the IDF? They probably need somebody to make them coffee (or tea? Isn’t that familiar?). After all , they need to get sober before initating any war.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 5:10 am

 

73. Gibran said:

The only subjectiveness in this whole debate is your own subjectiveness about the so-called “divine victory” of July 2006. It has been coined properly by many Arab writers as “istinsar ilahi”. Do you know what istinsar means? It is the subjective interpretation of a clear defeat as a divinely inspired victory. Thousands of Hezbollah supporters are homeless for two kidnapped soldiers. What a bargain? It seems the homeless Hezbollah supporters will have to spend the winter camped out in the middle of downtown Beirut. That is indeed a great subjective divine victory.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 5:26 am

 

74. Dubai Jazz said:

I agree Gibran, damage on both sides is incomparable, I am not debating that.
What I am saying is that the IDF would have also loved to have a “walkover” to Beirout to capture Hasan Naserullah and restore the soldiers. But they couldn’t, against all the odds, and it is all because of the epic steadfastness of Hezbollah fighters.
P.S. : Istensar in Arabic is to ask for support, remember the name of the Abbasi Khalifat, “Al Mustensir Bellah” which means: the one who seeks Allah’s support to acquire victory.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 5:45 am

 

75. Gibran said:

O yeah? is that what it means? You’re right Al Mustenser is the one who sought Allah’s support. But that is only his name and he never claimed divinely inspired victories. But Nasrallah is the one who sought victory subjectively when he actually suffered defeat by his own admission. Your so-called hero (Nasrallah) is turning into a comedian. Be real man.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 6:11 am

 

76. Dubai Jazz said:

You know what is mind-boggling about the whole thing; all other nations exalt their heroes, you would never meet a Latino who would tell you that Che Guevara was a Soviet proxy. Or an Indian would claim that Ghandi was a submissive wimp.
Gibran, you are an Arab, right? Lebanese maybe? …. Amongst the Arabic figures in the last 100 years, who do you consider to be your hero?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 6:26 am

 

77. Dubai Jazz said:

Dear Ehsani2:
Glad to see you have taken a slightly positive position, that’s a progress isn’t it?!!!
I had the privilege of being an eye witness to the incredible growth of Dubai during the last couple of years, on the other hand, do you think it is going to be healthy for the Syrian economy to try to emulate the kind of projects that are underway now in Dubai?
I am not an economist myself…

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 8:01 am

 

78. t_desco said:

Syria in Bush’s Crosshairs

Exclusive: A classified document suggests the Administration is considering a plan to fund political opposition to the Damascus government. Some critics say it would be an unwarranted covert action

The Bush Administration has been quietly nurturing individuals and parties opposed to the Syrian government in an effort to undermine the regime of President Bashar Assad. Parts of the scheme are outlined in a classified, two-page document which says that the U.S. already is “supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists” in Europe. The document bluntly expresses the hope that “these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists.”

The document says that Syria’s legislative elections, scheduled for March 2007, “provide a potentially galvanizing issue for… critics of the Assad regime.” To capitalize on that opportunity, the document proposes a secret “election monitoring” scheme, in which “internet accessible materials will be available for printing and dissemination by activists inside the country [Syria] and neighboring countries.” The proposal also calls for surreptitiously giving money to at least one Syrian politician who, according to the document, intends to run in the election. The effort would also include “voter education campaigns” and public opinion polling, with the first poll “tentatively scheduled in early 2007.”

The proposal has not yet been approved, in part because of questions over whether the Syrian elections will be delayed or even cancelled. But one U.S. official familiar with the proposal said: “You are forced to wonder whether we are now trying to destabilize the Syrian government.”

The proposal says part of the effort would be run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF). The Front includes the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization that for decades supported the violent overthrow the Syrian government, but now says it seeks peaceful, democratic reform. (In Syria, however, membership in the Brotherhood is still punishable by death.) Another member of the NSF is Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former high-ranking Syrian official and Assad family loyalist who recently went into exile after a political clash with the regime. Representatives of the National Salvation Front, including Abdulhamid, were accorded at least two meetings earlier this year at the White House, which described the sessions as exploratory. Since then, the National Salvation Front has said it intends to open an office in Washington in the near future.

Others detect another goal for the proposed policy. “Ever since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which Syria opposed, the Bush Administration has been looking for ways to squeeze the government in Damascus,” notes Joshua Landis, a Syria expert who is co-director of the Center for Peace Studies at the University of Oklahoma. “Syria has appeared to be next on the Administration’s agenda to reform the greater Middle East.” Landis adds: “This is apparently an effort to gin up the Syrian opposition under the rubric of ‘democracy promotion’ and ‘election monitoring,’ but it’s really just an attempt to pressure the Syrian government” into doing what the U.S. wants.
Adam Zargorin/TIME

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 8:56 am

 

79. Dubai Jazz said:

In an interview with Al Arabiya today:
“Blair thinks it is possible to achieve peace in the middle east without engaging Syria”
http://www.alarabiya.net/Articles/2006/12/20/30066.htm

Oh Tony… Tony! …Our shall I call you “ Yo Blair!”?
Long tenure in the office has taken its toll on this chap, he is suffering a serious political senility.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 9:39 am

 

80. Ford Prefect said:

T_Desco, thanks for sharing the information. It is apparent to many that King Bush and his father Barbara have a true a genuine love to the Syrian people that cannot be hidden. Everyday, they wake up in the morning thinking what they can do to make the Syrian people live a better life. That is why they are funding the opposition to topple the current regime junta. Seriously, if they want to change the regime, one question I have is why? What is the Syrian regime doing different that say Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia for its people and their freedom? If the talk is to provide liberal democracy based on human rights, why don’t they start with their friends first? Or is it that the Syrian regime bothering Israel a little is what is prompting King George’s let’s-free-the-Syrian-people policy? Oh yes, he is the one who proclaimed “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq back in May of 2003. Just accomplishing one mission after another. God Bless Syria and its people, they don’t need the King and his court to show them how they can survive tyrany.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 11:26 am

 

81. Akbar Palace said:

Gibran –

“Your sentiments require a legitimate partner which does not exist at the moment.”

Then why do you suppose the Syrian government contiinues to call for peace talks with Israel?

Our courageous leader Ayman al-Zawahri (who won’t rest until every Arab and Muslim country is at war) has strong words against both political parties in Palestine:

“Ayman al-Zawahri said in a video tape aired on Wednesday that Palestinian elections would not free Palestinian land and would deal a blow to holy war against Israeli occupation.”

I guess he forgot Arafat’s rejection at Camp David.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061220/ts_nm/palestinians_zawahri_dc_3

Dubai Jazz comments on Tony Blair:

“Long tenure in the office has taken its toll on this chap, he is suffering a serious political senility.”

Even Tony Blair, center-left labor party leader, knows that Syria can’t have her cake and eat it.

Beyond politics, it’s common sense. Syria has to give up on terrorism first, then they can chat about Golan. It’s the Baathist Boy Wonder’s only choice.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 12:31 pm

 

82. why-discuss said:

AKBAR PALACE
but when a civil war hits Israel like it is in Iraq, Palestine and like it may again in Lebanon, it will be in the news here in the US. I can assure you.

As you say it so well, “we can hope and pray”…

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 1:55 pm

 

83. Gibran said:

I thought you’d never ask Dubai Jazz. But I’ll put Kemil Chamoun on the top of the list.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 2:19 pm

 

84. Gibran said:

Akbar, Syria has only one objective behind such calls for so-called peace. It only wants to break out of isolation; and on its own terms.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 2:28 pm

 
 

86. Akbar Palace said:

“Akbar, Syria has only one objective behind such calls for so-called peace. It only wants to break out of isolation; and on its own terms.”

Gibran,

What’s wrong with isolation?

Ausamaa said:

“Through out the years, Syria was the ONE country that represented a real MILITARY danger to Israel. The proximity, the influence, the ability to mobilize the Arab street, its support for Hizbullah, the Palestinian resistance and its stubborn attachment to Arabism.”

If Syrian influence is so omnipotent, why did they leave Lebanon after the Hariri assassination?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 3:49 pm

 

87. Ehsani2 said:

Washington (dpa) – US President George W Bush on Wednesday upheld
his conditions for high-level talks with Iran and Syria, and he
criticized Iran’s president for his views on Israel and the Holocaust.
At a year-end news conference, Bush renewed his insistence that
Iran stop enriching uranium before the United States would consider
direct talks with the Islamic republic.
“If they verifiably stop their enrichment programme, we will
talk,” Bush said. The United States says Iran is seeking a nuclear
bomb, which the Iranians deny.
A high-level panel co-chaired by former US secretary of state James
Baker III proposed this month that Washington actively engage Syria
and Iran in the search for bringing peace to Iraq, but Bush has been
cool to the idea unless both countries meet US conditions.
Bush said he was “amazed” about an Iranian-hosted conference this
month aimed at belittling the Holocaust. At the conference, Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed Israel would disappear as the
Soviet Union after the collapse of communism.
“The leader of Iran is willing to say things that really hurt his
country and further isolate his people,” Bush said. “My message to
the Iranian people is: You can do better.”
The United States has regularly criticized Ahmadinejad for
trivializing the Holocaust by calling it a myth and his calls for
Israel to be wiped off the map.
Bush renewed US charges that Syria is helping fuel the violence in
Iraq and destabilizing the government of neighbouring Lebanon, where
Syria kept troops for three decades until being forced to pull out
under international pressure last year.
Syria should take “some concrete positive steps that promote
peace, as opposed to instability,” Bush said.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 4:12 pm

 

88. Ehsani2 said:

Dubai Jazz,

You seem glad that I have taken a slightly positive position and you then ask whether emulating Dubai’s model is good for Syria.

Let me answer your question first. Emulating Dubai is certainly better than continuing the train wreck that Syria is following today. Is excessive growth healthy? It sure beats excessive under-achievement. I also have been a witness of the Dubai experiment. My association with that place stretches back to over 20 years.

Syria should absolutely copy a substantial element of that model. For that to happen, however, a long list of prerequisites needs to take place. Sadly, the country is simply unprepared for this challenge. Baath-inspired economic policy and true economic growth and prosperity are mutually exclusive. You cannot have one with the other.

As for me taking a positive position, I am driven by the facts on the ground and not blind ideology. As Keynes said, “when the facts change, I change my mind.”

I must say that I have seen precious little to take a “slightly positive position” as you put it.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 4:27 pm

 

89. simohurtta said:

I know how important it is to discredit Israel on this forum (we can all thank Professor Josh and the Arab News Media for that), but when a civil war hits Israel like it is in Iraq, Palestine and like it may again in Lebanon, it will be in the news here in the US. I can assure you.

Actually Akbar the news I referred was in Haarezt, which is part of Jewish media. The US or European press tells frequently stories about Muslim extremism but rarely about Jewish extremism.

Anybody who follows Middle East’s events can’t avoid wondering Israel’s role in the ongoing conflicts. It is not only “Islamofasists” and mad dictators. There is also the other side responsible of much of the present chaos.

In seeing Israel situation there are two possible “roles” for Israel.
1) Israel is a weak, honest, democratic state in defence against the brutal medieval Arab herds.
2) Israel is strong aggressive racist state, which uses brutally its military might and holds millions in de facto imprisonment.

In the peace efforts Israel “attitude” can be seen:
1) As an active partner which suggests solutions and negotiates actively with the opposite side.
2) As a reluctant partner which only accepts peace initiatives by third parties under an extreme pressure and then makes irrational demands for even beginning to talk.

I as many others in Europe see Israel in the both sections represent the option 2. It is not anti Semitism to criticize Israel’s racist and brutal policy. Israel has had 40 years to get a solution for the Palestine problem, either by letting the occupied areas to “go” or to append the occupied areas with their population to hers territory and citizens. Israel has done neither. Instead Israel has slowly annexed the land and resources leaving the Palestinians in a miserable situation. Without showing her own cards Israel is demanding ever shifting precedent conditions for even beginning the talks to find a solution. If somebody calls that a behaviour of a nation which desperate tries to get peace, he is nuts.

I see that more dangerous are nations which deliberately create the conditions for terror (as Israel does) than nations which are claimed to support terrorism. If there is no reason for terrorism there can’t be any support. Certainly the fighting methods of Palestinians are not “recommendable” but still they use exactly the same tactics as in many other conflicts around the world have been used. The only “new invention” is suicide bomber, but in the end what is the difference in leaving milk can bombs in a crowded hotel (as under Menachem Begin Irgun did) or between modern days suicide bomber. Nothing, civilians die.

This new term Bush and Blair are now using “war against radicalism and extremism” is even more hilarious than the blurry “war against terrorism”. The Christian extremists (and foreign policy radicals) Bush and Blair demanding others not to be extremists or radical, a real mission give beyond the stars like Bush said some years ago. The western press and politicians have rather little commented (doesn’t fit in the ongoing propaganda war?) about how in Iran the moderate and pragmatists won in the last elections. Isn’t it Akbar rather strange that they have elections in “worst” country of the axis of the evil?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 4:51 pm

 

90. ausamaa said:

Ok Guys,
Syria is week.
Israel is Strong.
Israel does not attack Syria because it has many other considerations; humanitarian, moral, it’s peace oriented strategy, etc… etc…

Syria is no danger to nobody, but POTUS and the neocons act as if they see it in their nightmare every night. Why is that so???

Can someone clarify those facts to POTUS and ask him to take Syria off his mind. And convince Israel of the same while you are it…Or, have Syria raise the white flag one way or the other. The fastest way is to attack it. Why has this not been done? Are the continuous threats to use force since 2003 getting the needed results or response from this “weak Syria”?

Certainly not, it seems; wanna guess again why they are not attacking “weak Syria” yet? Guess again !!!

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 5:51 pm

 

91. Akbar Palace said:

simohurtta said:

“Actually Akbar the news I referred was in Haarezt, which is part of Jewish media. The US or European press tells frequently stories about Muslim extremism but rarely about Jewish extremism.”

Simorhurtta,

Whatever Haaretz reported, it wasn’t anything that remotely appeared to be a civil war. Yes, Israel isn’t a Utopia, but there is freedom, democracy and a quite viable economy.

Ask an Israeli-Arab if he would prefer to live in Palestine.

“In seeing Israel situation there are two possible “roles” for Israel.

1) Israel is a weak, honest, democratic state in defence against the brutal medieval Arab herds.

2) Israel is strong aggressive racist state, which uses brutally its military might and holds millions in de facto imprisonment.”

Are you reading the Baathist handbook again?

“It is not anti Semitism to criticize Israel’s racist and brutal policy.”

No it isn’t anti-semitism (although they do the same thing), it’s just myth and misinformation.

“Israel has had 40 years to get a solution for the Palestine problem, either by letting the occupied areas to “go” or to append the occupied areas with their population to hers territory and citizens.”

And Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians have had 58 years to stop terorism. You know, little things like that.

“Instead Israel has slowly annexed the land and resources leaving the Palestinians in a miserable situation.”

Leaving Gaza isn’t “slowly annexing” anything.

“Without showing her own cards Israel is demanding ever shifting precedent conditions for even beginning the talks to find a solution. If somebody calls that a behaviour of a nation which desperate tries to get peace, he is nuts.”

Not sure what you’re saying, but it sounds pretty bad.

“…about how in Iran the moderate and pragmatists won in the last elections. Isn’t it Akbar rather strange that they have elections in “worst” country of the axis of the evil?”

Democracy does not guarantee that the people will vote in a president or government to their liking.

The hitch is that the government they vote in can change the rules of the game. They can change term limits, they can ban plotical parties to their disliking, etc. Democracy DOES open a Pandora’s box.

So yes, even the Nazi party garnered the most votes in the early 30s. I wonder if the Nazis would have won any election, say, in 1940?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party

It would be interesting to see how elections in Palestine will work out if Abbas has his way.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 7:15 pm

 

92. simohurtta said:

Ask an Israeli-Arab if he would prefer to live in Palestine.

Who would like to live in the occupied area and being beaten or killed by Israeli soldiers?

Ask US or Finnish Jews do they want to live in Israel? Very few do. And a growing number of Israeli Jews use their second passport and leave. Why? They see that this present “road” leads to destruction.

Your comments of democracy are rather absurd. Ariel Sharon won the elections and many considered him much more dangerous than the present Iranian president. Not to mention the known terrorist big boss who served as Israeli Prime Minister. A Jewish terrorist is considered as a freedom fighter and Palestinian terrorist is considered as a terrorist. Both killed innocent civilians. Strange isn’t it Akbar?

PS. Akbar I was not speaking about civil war among Jews as you can read your self from the comments. The article of Haaretz describes the religious extremism and social behaviour among the Jews. Beating one Jewish women (how many are not reported) by several Jewish men is hardly a civil war. By the way is your admired Israeli president freed from the rape suspicions? Have not read news about it for a while…

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 10:12 pm

 

93. Gibran said:

Akbar, there is nothing wrong with isolation in Syria’s case. Actually, Syria should never be allowed to break out from the box it is in.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 10:42 pm

 

94. Akbar Palace said:

Gibran said:

“Akbar, Syria has only one objective behind such calls for so-called peace. It only wants to break out of isolation; and on its own terms.”

You forgot to add “and want’s the Golan back”.

Neither should happen unless the good doctor puts an end to supporting terrorism.

“Ask US or Finnish Jews do they want to live in Israel? Very few do. And a growing number of Israeli Jews use their second passport and leave. Why? They see that this present “road” leads to destruction.”

Some Israelis leave and some return and some don’t.

In the end, the Jewish population of Israel is still growing. Shall I apologize?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3246096,00.html

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 21st, 2006, 5:31 pm

 

95. Jimbo said:

Akbar said: “Americans believe they are at war with Islamofascists”

Umm, speak for yourself buddy. Please don’t speak in the name of all Americans when you repeat this kind of garbage. Some of us understand the world is a lot more complicated than such simplistic musings.

Folks in the USG will turn around and support those same evil “islamofascists” in a second if they think it will serve their narrowly perceived interests.

And c’mon dude, Sean Hannity is an idiot. Conservatives have much sharper minds than his. Don’t feel you have to defend him just coz he’s conservative.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 23rd, 2006, 7:13 pm

 

96. Ani-Tsaligi said:

The Neo-Con plan for destabilization of the region is outlined in a document co-written by Mrs. Wurmser’s husband David Wurmser. The document is entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. As you’ll notice forging closer ties with the US and ousting Saddam are absolutely core objectives in this document which is written for the advancement of the Israeli people’s, not the American people. The people whom are the undesigned of the document include high ranking and ex-high ranking officials in the United States government including Douglas Fieth and Mr. Wurmser himself who are or were employed by the Department of Defense (Pentagon). If memory serves me Mr. Fieth was indicted or investigated on charges of espinage for the Israeli government.

Israels war is not our war. America’s intrests should lie in freeing ourselves of the dependance of the fuel that funds the nations that choose to spread their political and religious agenda’s through terrorism. It is silly to bomb these people and put our dollars in their pockets so that they can retaliate.

It is time we purge the Neo-Cons from our government along with any other foriegn agents that seek to steer the United States blindly into war against their enemies. This is our country and it is nothing more than treasonous to allow foriegn entities to dictate our foriegn policy. We should look with disgust upon nations that proclaim to be our allies and attempt to hi-jack our policy maker’s pens.

It is time we return to our roots, time we once again became intraverted and self reliant.

As for Americans who would be proxy to nations who attempt to misguide the United States, I say we call them what they are, traitors. Mr. and Mrs Wurmser are you familiar with the term “Hang’em high.”?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

June 26th, 2007, 9:54 pm

 

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

Post a comment