Maintenance of stability? You totally refute claims that the US has sought to destabilise Syria then?
Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Not at all, I believe US policy in Syria from 2011 - present has been designed to perpetuate the conflict there.
If you read what I wrote, I said "enough stability in the Levant to keep the Suez Canal open and prevent that region's conflicts from spilling over into the Persian Gulf." American meddling in Syria hasn't threatened the former (the Suez Canal). It has however affected the latter, as ISIS ended up threatening Baghdad while the conflict has played a role in fueling the Qatar-Saudi standoff, both of which ended up empowering the Iranians. Which only means that the Americans occasionally/often feck things up for themselves, the classic example being the 2003 invasion of Iraq which destroyed the delicate power of the balance in the Gulf and...ended up empowering the Iranians.
Understand, when I say 'stability' I mean it in a purely neutral sense, I'm not judging whether it's a good thing or bad thing. I essentially mean 'maintenance of the status quo'.
It's clear (almost) from https://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/us-policy-in-syria-post-isis-011118 linked to in that article, that continued US military presence in Syria is, at least in part, aimed at defending Israel from Hezbollah. You could watch the whole hearing - or go straight to Senator Tim Kaine's questions through to the end from around the 1:38:00 mark. Legal justification for the missile strike back in May was tenuous, at best. Insertion of military forces, uninvited, into a foreign sovereign state in order to curtail the activities of a third party state - well, that's just downright unlawful. It's the sort of action more often characteristic of rogue states.
I'd agree, except for striving to keep stability in the levant. A stable Syria would see a stable ally of Iran, thereby undermining the status quo of empowering the Gulf States. In fact, it's been US policy beyond 2011 - think as far back as 2006 when Assad was on the radar for another CIA-sponsored coup. A weaker Syria would also undermine factions such as Hezbollah, who've proven to be a thorn on Israel's doorstep.
Like I said above, it's about enough stability to safeguard America's vital interests in the Levant. A weakened Syria furthers those interests since it empowers Israel, and a strong Israel is the linchpin of American strategy in the Levant.
There's this weird idea that US support for Israel has nothing to do with geopolitics, that it's all about the lobby's success. There's even often the suggestion (you see it sometimes on the Cafe) that US support for Israel goes against America's interests in the Middle East. Well consider this:
From 1948 to 1973 there were four Arab-Israeli wars in the Levant. Israel won the 48 war with assistance from the Eastern Bloc (Czech arms approved by Stalin). They launched the Suez war alongside Britain and France. They won the 67 war with French arms. All this time the Gulf was quiet thanks to the British dominance there which ended in 1971.
So the Levant was the major headache region in the Middle East for the Western powers - these wars resulted in the closure of the Suez Canal following the Suez Crisis and again following the 67 war, this time for 8 years. They had the effect of consolidating the place of the two major Arab confrontation states, Syria and Egypt, in the Soviet camp (especially Egypt from 67-73). They at times threatened to drag the Soviets and Americans into an open confrontation. And most importantly, after the 73 war they threatened the free flow of oil from the now British-free Persian Gulf due to the Arab oil embargo.
Now look at this chart of US aid to Israel, and note the huge spike in 1974:
The result? There have been no interstate Arab-Israeli wars since 1973. The Suez Canal re-opened in 1975 and has stayed open since. There were no more prospects of a Soviet-American standoff in the Levant. Within five years the biggest, most influential Arab state, Egypt, had flipped from the Soviet to the Western camp and made peace with Israel. And never since have events in the Levant affected the flow of oil from the Gulf. Basically, the maintenance of a strong Israel won the Cold War in the Levant for the Americans and brought an end to the disruption that region's conflicts made for America's vital Middle Eastern interests. And it was all done without American boots on the ground (the only time America has put boots on the ground in the Levant since was in Lebanon in 1982, briefly). People who love to moan about US aid to Israel are missing the bigger picture - America actually spends a lot more money in other regions where it feels forced to commit American troops because, basically, they have no equivalent to Israel. Think the Korean Peninsula, Western Europe during the Cold War, and now of course the Persian Gulf.
Since 1973 the Gulf has become the major headache region in the Middle East for the Americans, and it's now the Gulf's conflicts which threaten the American order in the Levant, not the other way around.
An excellent analysis.Like I said above, it's about enough stability to safeguard America's vital interests in the Levant. A weakened Syria furthers those interests since it empowers Israel, and a strong Israel is the linchpin of American strategy in the Levant.
There's this weird idea that US support for Israel has nothing to do with geopolitics, that it's all about the lobby's success. There's even often the suggestion (you see it sometimes on the Cafe) that US support for Israel goes against America's interests in the Middle East. Well consider this:
From 1948 to 1973 there were four Arab-Israeli wars in the Levant. Israel won the 48 war with assistance from the Eastern Bloc (Czech arms approved by Stalin). They launched the Suez war alongside Britain and France. They won the 67 war with French arms. All this time the Gulf was quiet thanks to the British dominance there which ended in 1971.
So the Levant was the major headache region in the Middle East for the Western powers - these wars resulted in the closure of the Suez Canal following the Suez Crisis and again following the 67 war, this time for 8 years. They had the effect of consolidating the place of the two major Arab confrontation states, Syria and Egypt, in the Soviet camp (especially Egypt from 67-73). They at times threatened to drag the Soviets and Americans into an open confrontation. And most importantly, after the 73 war they threatened the free flow of oil from the now British-free Persian Gulf due to the Arab oil embargo.
Now look at this chart of US aid to Israel, and note the huge spike in 1974:
The result? There have been no interstate Arab-Israeli wars since 1973. The Suez Canal re-opened in 1975 and has stayed open since. There were no more prospects of a Soviet-American standoff in the Levant. Within five years the biggest, most influential Arab state, Egypt, had flipped from the Soviet to the Western camp and made peace with Israel. And never since have events in the Levant affected the flow of oil from the Gulf. Basically, the maintenance of a strong Israel won the Cold War in the Levant for the Americans and brought an end to the disruption that region's conflicts made for America's vital Middle Eastern interests. And it was all done without American boots on the ground (the only time America has put boots on the ground in the Levant since was in Lebanon in 1982, briefly). People who love to moan about US aid to Israel are missing the bigger picture - America actually spends a lot more money in other regions where it feels forced to commit American troops because, basically, they have no equivalent to Israel. Think the Korean Peninsula, Western Europe during the Cold War, and now of course the Persian Gulf.
Since 1973 the Gulf has become the major headache region in the Middle East for the Americans, and it's now the Gulf's conflicts which threaten the American order in the Levant, not the other way around.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Fair reaction, Israel is a shitty little country
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Imagine anyone here writing about Palestinians the way you write about Israelis. He/she would be called a racist in no time (and rightly so).
Nothing racist about calling Israel a shitty country, so was South Africa back in the day
We literally had a poster on here who had Cuntastine as his location for many years.
Saw USrael mentioned on twitter today.
Did he get called out for it? Or when he wrote similar bullshit in his posts? He certainly should have.
This conflict really brings out the best in people doesn't it?I didn't open the spoilers. I have no interest in racist bs. I guess you mean the site with the pdf? They are US gov documents, so most unlikely to be anti-semitic.
No, I mean the actual Twitter account you were using as a source in this thread, one which regularly tweets as to how evil they believe Jewish people to be. The spoilers contain certain tweets. Take a scroll through his account and it's pretty obvious, nothing to do with US governments and the like.
The Jew-rat comparison is literally Nazism.
https://www.amazon.com/Maus-Survivors-Tale-Art-Spiegelman/dp/0141014083
Oh. I don't follow the account so wasn't aware. Sorry. I picked up on it from a retweet. Again, it's the content that is really relevant and the reason for my post - about Netanyahu's alleged part in stealing nuclear secrets to assist in a foreign power obtaining nuclear weapons capability. Had it been Iran or DPRK I doubt there would be the same attention given to the Twitter account that tweeted a link to the story.
When it's an account espousing Nazism I'd say there would be.
Well, honestly, I had no idea. To be honest, I still haven't checked out the spoilers or looked at the other tweets from that account. It's not something I am the least bit interested in. Racism is just a huge turn off to me.
And yet you've linked to an explicitly anti-semitic, Nazi-leaning account?
Look, I'm more than willing to criticise Israel. Their attitude towards Palestine has often been abhorrent and their approach towards building settlements etc is atrocious. But it's not unfair to say that a lot of these alternative Twitter accounts seem to have ulterior motives...very few of them are at all credible and among them some deal in anti-semitism or in this case outright Nazism. Considering the validity of your sources has been pointed out plenty of times before I do find it strange as to how you're seemingly completely oblivious to this.
It's because I simply don't give a feck. It's the content that matters to me. Maybe I've said that before. Maybe I'll have to say it again. And again.
Encouraging.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Well maybe the fact that you 'accidentally' post tweets from Nazis says a lot about the kind of circles where you're getting your news.
It was not an accident as such. More of an irrelevance. If, as seems to be the case, the link was in a tweet from someone who supports Nazis, what the feck does that have to do with the content? How is the content in any way shape or form promoting nazism? This is just ridiculous now. Are you accusing me of supporting nazism? Just feck off with that shit. Clearly - crystal clearly - my intention was to highlight Netanyahu's participation in the theft of nuclear technology. THAT is what we should be discussing here. It really fecks me off that there is no attention being paid to that. I'll say it again: "I don't give a feck about what else that twitter account might be associated with".
Well how about you actually point out the exact place in the document in question where Netanyahu's "theft of nuclear technology" is discussed? That'll make everything easier.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The court case was specifically about that - as the LA Times article in the pdf shows. Netanyahu's involvement, as the contact in Heli, is clear enough isn't it?
Do a better job of providing a source. If you provide a source from a neo-nazi account, even if they are just sourcing the primary source, you're still guilty of using a secondary source from a neo-nazi account. Find the primary version of it and use that. If you can't find a primary version, then it probably doesn't exist, or find something else that is a primary source, which isn't being sourced from a neo-nazi site. Yes, the historian geek in me is acting out! However, this is the proper way to do things if you want to do it academically.
The twitter account providing the link to the video was supposedly a neo=nazi account, I'm told. What else? Is the source of the pdfs also supposed to be neo-nazi?
So you admit you're not careful and just post anything that might support your prior positions, regardless of source?
The original source is an FBI interview of an Israeli spy... you believe the FBI and Israeli spies now?
I'd go further than say I'm not careful. I'd say I don't give a feck. I've put it out there because it's an important story. I don't think it's very likely to be covered in "reputable" sources like the ones that assured us of the case for Saddam's WMDs and links to Al Qaeda. Maybe it has been. Idk. Have a look.So you admit you're not careful and just post anything that might support your prior positions, regardless of source?
The original source is an FBI interview of an Israeli spy... you believe the FBI and Israeli spies now?
Ok great. That's all we need to know.
I've read the document twice. I'm just not seeing what you and that Nazi are seeing. Netanyahu is briefly mentioned in passing along with Ariel Sharon. There's no mention of either of them being involved in stealing anything.