Israel to Target More Militant Leaders

[Sirotnikov]

"there is a chance for a new leader?"
Like?

If Arafat wouldn't be meddling around, Abu Mazen would be a good leader.

"while he's alive, NO new leader will arise. Nada."

And when he's dead there is no leader for a long time.

Not necessarily. Nobody really is certain that there will be imminent civil war.

And if there is, at least they will sort out what they want, instead of attacking Israelis all the freaking time.

I personally think that once Arafat is out, the Fatah will hold some kind of elections, in which either Abu Mazen or Abu Alla will win.

"I bet their army is wrecking havoc in Iraq right now."

So why is the south relatively quiet for now?

huh?

Why would they be active in the south? Iran and Iraq border in the noth east...

And I'm pretty sure that a good portion of the terracts in Iraq, are supported or comitted by Iran or Iranian supported elements.

"The Syrians are baathists. So they are of course helping thier "brotherin"."

Feuding brothers, there's been a split in Baath, has there not. Also the Syrian Baath party is a vehicle of the Alawis, so I wonder how well they get along with the Iraqi Sunnis.

A split in ideology has never stopped arab nations from forming alliances against bigger powers.

This flawed western perceptions, that all arab nations are mortal enemies, is a projection of western values of ideology, on eastern culture.

The Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians would sooner put their differences aside, fight a war against a common enemy (the US, Israel), and when they are done, they will return to fight among themselves.

In any case, the allawis and sunnis have no major issues.

And in any case, the Baathist ideology, is in both cases, a non-religious one. While both may "use" Islamic cultural relics, the Islam has never been a part of their ideology.

Baathism is national socialism. It has been affected by western ideas of nationalism, fascism and communism.

If there's any western model for baath, it would be Stalin's Soviet Union, which was very nationalistic, and "Russian" in core.

Also why would they need encouragement? And how much aid could the Syrians provide without being caught?

They could provide quite a lot. From funds, to places of hiding, to training operatives.

That's all pretty much speculation. If there was anything substantial, we would have Israel and the Neocons firing on all propaganda cylinders with that.

Israel and the neocons already did that.

But they have also made a (wise IMO) decision to step down on the "propoganda", because intelligence is always a check you can't cover.

If the neocons and Israel would have continued making agressive remarks towards Iran and Syria, there would be even more criticism drawn towards the US.

[HershOstropoler]

Not necessarily. Nobody really is certain that there will be imminent civil war.

Why civil war? Just coexist under different leaders, and let everyone do what they like to do: attacking Israel.

The problem is that you need someone who has the authority to make peace for the palestinians. For now that's Arafat, unfortunately.

Why would they be active in the south? Iran and Iraq border in the noth east...

I have no idea what you mean. Iraq's south is mostly shiite, and borders Iran.

And I'm pretty sure that a good portion of the terracts in Iraq, are supported or comitted by Iran or Iranian supported elements.

I doubt it. But when the south of Iraq finally goes up in flames, Iran may have something to do with it.

A split in ideology has never stopped arab nations from forming alliances against bigger powers.

Or against each other. Syria was closer to Iran in gulf war I, and joined gulf war II against Iraq.

This flawed western perceptions, that all arab nations are mortal enemies

This flawed western perception of arab nations.

Also, I have no doubt that provided a good reason, the most sworn enemies will forge an alliance of convenience. So I have no idea where you see the "mortal enemies" idea in my post.

In any case, the allawis and sunnis have no major issues.

Not big ones. But it makes a difference for the glue that holds the elites together.

And in any case, the Baathist ideology, is in both cases, a non-religious one. While both may "use" Islamic cultural relics, the Islam has never been a part of their ideology.

I tend to see the ME from my knowledge of medieval europe. Far from perfect, but much better than a modern european perspective.

These societies have never been secularised. No matter how secular some medieval european politicians may appear, they usually weren't, and they could not eliminate religion from politics anway. I'd rather see it as a western misperception to attribute much importance to a concept like "ideology".

They could provide quite a lot. From funds, to places of hiding, to training operatives.

What, in Syria?

Israel and the neocons already did that. But they have also made a (wise IMO) decision to step down on the "propoganda", because intelligence is always a check you can't cover.

It was a lot less loud than the barrage of propaganda, mixed with a load of lies and half truths, used to go to war against Iraq. Maybe they have realised they have their hands full with Iraq. But there still was no evidence provided in the phase where they bashed Syria and Iran.

More generally, I don't understand why you think terror attacks against the occupation forces in Iraq require any state sponsoring. It acts like a magnet for every radical islamist and arab nationalist.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Not necessarily. Nobody really is certain that there will be imminent civil war.

Why civil war? Just coexist under different leaders, and let everyone do what they like to do: attacking Israel.

Well that is what is supposedly going on already, and Arafat is preventing Abu Mazen from gathering enough power and centralize all the police services to stop this. Arafat himself is the one that promotes alot of duality and redudancy in the system.

The problem is that you need someone who has the authority to make peace for the palestinians. For now that's Arafat, unfortunately.

But what you don't understand that the most important thing is a will to do that. And while Arafat enjoys to flaunt his authority, he usually only abuses his authority to support terrorists, or intentionally hinders the efforts of one security service, by employing al-aqsa brigades activists in another securityy service.

Why would they be active in the south? Iran and Iraq border in the noth east...

I have no idea what you mean. Iraq's south is mostly shiite, and borders Iran.

Look:



Iran borders Iraq along the entire east border.

Iran has no use infiltrating the south, because any "revolution" in the south would be ineffective, and would too clearly be exposed as Iranian work. Furthermore, why would they bomb 125 Shiites? The Shiites already can be counted to act on orders from Iran.

Instead, working in the north, creates tension between the Americans and the sunnis lving there. This creates more supporters for a future anti-American backlash. This opens another front. The south could be later sparked based on religious propoganda, and the north would be sparked based on general anti-american propoganda.

If you would be Iran, wouldn't you prefer to expand your field of influence to the north, instead of only concentrating in the south?

And I'm pretty sure that a good portion of the terracts in Iraq, are supported or comitted by Iran or Iranian supported elements.

I doubt it. But when the south of Iraq finally goes up in flames, Iran may have something to do with it.

Again, that is too simplistic in my view.

Iran has no interest setting up just the south of Iraq. That would only finger print an Iranian involvement.

The south is a natural supporter of Iran.

Instead, winning hearts in the north, by wrecking havoc and blaming it on the Americans, would win over more Iranian supporters than just the south.

And Iran's clear interest is to set up ALL of Iraq in flames. Both much more effective, and much easier to deny Iranian influence.

A split in ideology has never stopped arab nations from forming alliances against bigger powers.

Or against each other. Syria was closer to Iran in gulf war I, and joined gulf war II against Iraq.

huh?

When has syria ever joined a military action against Iraq?

This flawed western perceptions, that all arab nations are mortal enemies

This flawed western perception of arab nations.

Also, I have no doubt that provided a good reason, the most sworn enemies will forge an alliance of convenience. So I have no idea where you see the "mortal enemies" idea in my post.

Well not mortal, ok.

I'm just saying that you put too much into the rivalries between different Baath regimes, or into rivalries between Iran and Iraq.

They would much sooner (secretly) join forces against the US, than be happy to act against each other.

In any case, the allawis and sunnis have no major issues.

Not big ones. But it makes a difference for the glue that holds the elites together.

No it doesn't - because the strongest glue that holds the elites together is the fact that they sit in power using tyranical regimes.

If someone, like the USA, tries to make some order and install a liberal democratic government, all the tyranical regimes in the area are threatened, since they could be next.

So for Syria, and Iran, making the US adventure into Iraq a failure (via means of terrorism), and a re-installment of a dictatorial Iraqi regime, is much more important, than the squables between allawis and sunnis, or one baathist stream versus another.

And in any case, the Baathist ideology, is in both cases, a non-religious one. While both may "use" Islamic cultural relics, the Islam has never been a part of their ideology.

I tend to see the ME from my knowledge of medieval europe. Far from perfect, but much better than a modern european perspective.

These societies have never been secularised. No matter how secular some medieval european politicians may appear, they usually weren't, and they could not eliminate religion from politics anway. I'd rather see it as a western misperception to attribute much importance to a concept like "ideology".

Well I disagree with you there.

There is no question in my eyes that the political leadership in the Baathist parties is deeply secularised and only uses Islamic traits as a propoganda tool.

The Baathist movement is socialistic and nationalistic in it's ideological roots.

Furthermore, there is another thing to be remembered here.

When the time came for the crusades, most european countries all put their differences aside and sent troops to fight against the common enemy - the Arabs.

The Arab countries act in the same way. They put their differences aside in order to fight America. They would rather save their opponents and later fight it out between themselves, than let some outsider like America pick on them.

[q]They could provide quite a lot. From funds, to places of hiding, to training operatives.

What, in Syria?
[q]
Yes - in Syria.

Syria provides a great deal of the illgal traffic in Iraq, both people and vehicle wise. Syria boasts some excellent training grounds for terrorists. Many of the baathis fighters that sprawled (and still sprawl) in Baghdad and Tikrit, were syrian citizens who came to Iraq as volunteers. While the Syrians denied it, there obviously was some level of government involvement and organziation of the mass volunteer movement.

Israel and the neocons already did that. But they have also made a (wise IMO) decision to step down on the "propoganda", because intelligence is always a check you can't cover.

It was a lot less loud than the barrage of propaganda, mixed with a load of lies and half truths, used to go to war against Iraq. Maybe they have realised they have their hands full with Iraq. But there still was no evidence provided in the phase where they bashed Syria and Iran.

Exactly. While I'm sure they had and now have enough evidence to show that Iran and Syria are meddling in Iraq, they choose not to go too far, because, after all they do have their hands full. So military action is not an option.

And making a public afare out of it would bring up discussion on the previous intelligence leading to the war itself, and generally put America in a bad light.

Go and try to explain lefties, that Iraq had a good exit plan, in case the Americans did attack.

I was infact sure that this would happen. The attack on Iraq was obvious for at least a year, giving the Iraqis plenty of time to hide their weapons where ever they want, or even completely destroy them.

More generally, I don't understand why you think terror attacks against the occupation forces in Iraq require any state sponsoring. It acts like a magnet for every radical islamist and arab nationalist.

They don't require it.

But it is bluntly obvious that both Iran and Syria have a clear interest in making Iraq a mess for America. It is also known that Iran and Syria are two states which support terrorists and home them. The most obvious example of their efforts is Hezbullah, which is funded by both Syria and Iran, and many chief Hezbullah operatives have been in close ties with Iranian intelligence.


Also, unlike people think - there is hardly ever anything "spontaneous" action which requires a great amount of bravery.

For a militant to go out and start wrecking havoc, he needs to know that he is backed by some large organization. That his actions are not meaningless, but are part of a bigger plan that would lead to a goal.


If the Iraqi terrorists and baathist had no outside help, they'd hardly have any resources to survive. And any such help from a totalitarian country, has clearly got to be with the central government agreement or even involvement.

[Edan]

Syria ... joined gulf war II against Iraq.

Did anyone tell Syria that?

[HershOstropoler]

Syria joined Bush I's coalition and sent troops to Saudi-Aabia in 1990 as part of desert shield. Of course for the real action, they were more busy in Lebanon. How much their Saudi contingent did in invading Kuwait/Iraq, I don't know.

[HershOstropoler]

But what you don't understand that the most important thing is a will to do that.

I understand that very well, that's why I said "unfortunately". The question is, can you push Arafat to accept peace? Ignoring, exiling or killing him won't help much.

The Shiites already can be counted to act on orders from Iran.

Now that may be a touch too simplistic.

Instead, working in the north, creates tension between the Americans and the sunnis lving there. This creates more supporters for a future anti-American backlash.

Again, there is enough tension anyway. And why would Iran support the Sunnis, who may in the future well be confronting the Shiites?

And Iran's clear interest is to set up ALL of Iraq in flames. Both much more effective, and much easier to deny Iranian influence.

Even easier to just sit and watch it go up in flames.

I'm just saying that you put too much into the rivalries between different Baath regimes, or into rivalries between Iran and Iraq.

They would much sooner (secretly) join forces against the US, than be happy to act against each other.

I have no doubt that many groups would bury their hadgets for a while to attack the Americans. Although maybe not all. It might be difficult to get Wahabite and Shiite fundamentalists to put aside their differences.

No it doesn't - because the strongest glue that holds the elites together is the fact that they sit in power using tyranical regimes.

And the whole power structure is like a client system, and that is based on social factors. Arab Sunnis in Iraq, Alawis in Syria.

If someone, like the USA, tries to make some order and install a liberal democratic government, all the tyranical regimes in the area are threatened, since they could be next.

If I were a ME dictator, I wouldn't be concerned. Even if the US really wants a democracy there, it has a maybe 3 % chance of getting one. And as long as you give the US what it wants, no ME dictator has ever been threatened by it.

When the time came for the crusades, most european countries all put their differences aside and sent troops to fight against the common enemy - the Arabs.

That's totally ahistorical.

They would rather save their opponents and later fight it out between themselves, than let some outsider like America pick on them.

Yes. I also think that's what the Americans don't understand. Iraqis may feel liberated, but they can in the same instant feel humiliated. They like Saddam being removed, but they don't like the outsider. Would be a different thing if it were among arabs, or at least in the Umma.

While the Syrians denied it, there obviously was some level of government involvement and organziation of the mass volunteer movement.

What masses? How many? And why government involvement? There were stories about 3000 Islamists from Saudi Arabia entering Iraq. I wonder who counted them, and if the Saudis were sending them.

Go and try to explain lefties, that Iraq had a good exit plan, in case the Americans did attack.

Not sure what you are trying to say there.

But it is bluntly obvious that both Iran and Syria have a clear interest in making Iraq a mess for America.

It is also bluntly obvious to me that the US extreme right doesn't need any help in that endevour.

If the Iraqi terrorists and baathist had no outside help, they'd hardly have any resources to survive. And any such help from a totalitarian country, has clearly got to be with the central government agreement or even involvement.

1st, why do they need outside help? Do you think Hamas and Jihad would collapse without outside help? Then why doesn't Israel just control the outside borders of Israel and Palestine better?

2nd, at least Iran has a highly complex power structure with no all-mighty central government.