Israel weighs in - blunt, coldhearted ... but honest

I will let the New York Times article speak for itself. My only comment, right now. Everytime, i listen to the claims of 'our dear leaders', the reasons they provide to justify their actions, i think for myself: "at least be honest, so we know what we're dealing with". Now, after reading the statements of Israeli officials and policy experts, i feel pretty sick. Lesson learned. Be careful what you wish for.

Israel backs limited strike

Israeli officials have consistently made the case that enforcing Mr. Obama’s narrow “red line” on Syria is essential to halting the nuclear ambitions of Israel’s archenemy, Iran. More quietly, Israelis have increasingly argued that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome.

For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

“This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,” said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. “Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.”

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. — Josh Billings

I heard that was the alleged plan the CIA had for the African American population by introducing crack. Sit back and let the gangs kill each other off.

reply to post by talklikeapirat

or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

Doesn't this statement directly contradict John Kerry's very recent statement on the 2nd Sept. to the Senate 'committee' that Al Qaeda and terrorists are NOT becoming more prevalent in Syria?

This Israeli guy says the so-called rebels are 'increasingly dominated' by them.

Someone has a lot of explaining to do.

It does sound like quite an unusual culture that has a preference for civil war on its boarder. In some ways it is not surprising as this nation was born from the ashes of WW2, perpetuating a slow and gradual creep of its boarders over these years.

Nuclear weapons are a heavy issue and I can see as a part of the motivation for conflict. What is strange about nuclear weapons, the higher the risk for conflict, the greater the chance of there emergence. For example, North Korea would not have forced its way into this club without the Axis of Evil speech by Bush.

Over the years Iran has been making efforts, but would not call them in the club as of yet. Israel's black ops have been playing a part through attacking Iran's nuclear program along with many other global influences. The responsibility of nuclear weapons is huge, so I can accept and in some ways agree with Israels actions in this direct way. If Iran has not got there stuff together enough to properly defend this technology, then they do not deserve them.

However, if Iran has been learning from its mistakes and have tightened there security to the point where the only way to dismantle the program is through overt invasion, then I would have to call Iran is in the club due to the reality of the situation. One these weapons are on the table, the only responsible way to get rid of them is through rebuilding trust.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


...right.

First instigate a conflict between two parties, by help of your own henchmen as Agitators,
leading both groups of innocent souls to murder eachother,
- then sit back and relax untill they Annihilated eachother.

Now where we ve seen that Edomite tactic before in History.

reply to post by Lone12


Since when have Sunnis and Shiites needed an outside agitator to fight each other to their deaths?

People need to wake up and realize that the Muslim extremists decided to use the Arab Springs to spread Political Islam throughout the region from the beginning. Iran's been calling for this for AT LEAST the last five years and the extremists decided to heed that call. Unfortunately, for Ahmadinejad, the Sunnis decided to take it over and they're not showing any love for the Shiites in the process.