Israel to Assad: air strikes did not aim to help Syria rebels

[DonViejo]

Source: Reuters

By Dan Williams

JERUSALEM | Mon May 6, 2013 4:21am EDT

(Reuters) - Israel sought to persuade Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Monday that its recent air strikes around Damascus did not aim to weaken him in the face of a more than two-year-old rebellion.

Officials say Israel is reluctant to take sides in Syria's civil war for fear its actions would boost Islamists who are even more hostile to Israel than the Assad family, which has maintained a stable stand off with the Jewish state for decades.

But Israel has repeatedly warned it will not let Assad's ally Hezbollah receive hi-tech weaponry. Intelligence sources said Israel attacked Iranian-supplied missiles stored near the Syrian capital on Friday and Sunday that were awaiting transfer to Hezbollah guerrilla group in neighboring Lebanon.

Syria accused Israel of belligerence meant to shore up the outgunned anti-Assad rebels - drawing a denial on Monday from veteran Israeli lawmaker Tzachi Hanegbi, a confidant of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Full article at link:


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/06/us-syria-crisis-israel-idUSBRE94505I20130506

[Franker65]

1. I really don't think Israel wants to help either side

They've had a relatively peaceful time with Syria before the civil war kicked off. This appears to have been an effort to stop weapons going to Hezbollah. Helping the Syrian government or radical Islamists? The Israelis are better off staying out of it altogether

[jakeXT]

15. They did it in 07

"The last Israeli airstrike in Syria (before January) was in 2007, when Israel bombed what it believed was a secret nuclear reactor. Syria has denied that the building was a nuclear facility."

"In that 2007 attack and earlier ones, the Israelis carried out single strikes and did not wage a broader military campaign. Syria, in turn, did not respond directly to Israel but is widely seen as working through Hezbollah."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/04/181022113/israel-reportedly-attacked-syrian-target-in-airstrike

[Iliyah]

2. Seems like tensions are bubbling

over all over the world. Kinda like someone or something has infested the humans race with the hatred bug. Selfishness, greediness, non-caring seems to be taking hold regardless of religion.

That said, I pray for peace, but I can understand the jitters Israel must have, but talking about it with the other party/country is way more better than a force of might.

Now some media is saying the the rebels used the toxic chemicals so Pres O was right. Lets first find more facts before jumping into this matter blind folded. If McCain was Pres we would at war.

[Arctic Dave]

3. Yeah right.

Isreal took a side with AQ by bombing Syria.

If they had "proof" of a missile transfer then why don't they show it?


Israel will have to suffer the consquences of their aggression.

[Renew Deal]

4. What are the "consequences?"

And why do they have to show "proof?" Who's going to make them?

[Arctic Dave]

5. What does the US do when they have terrorist acts on their soil by foriegn actors?

Syria should be allowed to respond with what ever force they deem neccessary to stop the aggression.

Irsael is a belligerent state and should be punished accordingly.

[Renew Deal]

7. Who's going to do it?

There's a lot of "should" in your comments. Quite idealistic, but not very realistic.

[Arctic Dave]

8. Syria can handle the details.

I'm sure they will keep that to themselves until the response is executed.

Maybe israel shouldn't bomb other countries, then they would not have to worry about a military reprisial in return.

[Renew Deal]

10. I don't suspect they are very worried

It sounds like you're cheering on wars.

[Arctic Dave]

11. No, I am being realistic.

Syria will respond, as they should, to a hostile belligerent nation.

[hack89]

17. I doubt Syria has the capability to respond

considering how dependent they are right now from Iranian aid and Hezbollah fighters, it is pretty clear their conventional military strength has quickly eroded. They were pretty weak militarily to start with, with old and run down equipment - certainly not strong enough to take on Israel.

[Arctic Dave]

24. You think in terms of conventional warfare.

Syria will will no doubt release an unconventional attack through a proxy.

As they should.

[hack89]

26. And that proxy would be Hezbollah

which would mean the immolation of southern Lebanon and the crushing of Hezbollah. With Syria unable to respond, Israel would have a free hand to destroy Hezbollah and Hezbollah knows it. I don't see being that stupid.

[Arctic Dave]

28. Israel couldn't do it last time, what makes you think they could do this time?

The only way would to re-invade Lebenon and israel isn't that stupid. The improvement of insurgent warfare has become a well honed skill since Iraq. They would be bogged down for years.

The best Israel could is bomb a few neighborhoods again and look like a bigger aggressor then thet already are.

[hack89]

29. They learned their lessons and devised new tactics.

tactics that were tested and refined during Cast Lead in Gaza. Tactics that were very effective - remember that Hamas thought they could emulate Hezbollah's success.

The lesson that Israel learned from their last incursion into Lebanon was that they could not depend on the Air Force to find and destroy all the rocket sites. They had hoped that by just using air power they would minimize casualties. When they had to send in the ground troops, besides being too few in number, they were not properly prepared and trained.

Subsequent to that, Israel completely revamped their tactics and training. They have set up large training sites with replica Lebanese villages where ground units constantly train. Nothing is certain in war but the next invasion will be nothing like the last. They have had years to prepare.

[byeya]

30. I disagree: Israel is that stupid.

[leftynyc]

20. They can't respond

They're not going to do anything just like they didn't do anything in 2007 when Israel blew up something else. They're busy trying to stay in power.

[Arctic Dave]

25. They will react with an unconventioal attack

through a proxy.

As they should.

[leftynyc]

33. Keep dreaming

and how very nice of you to be okay with an uncoventional attack. Really, keep it up - showing your true colors quite nicely.

[Arctic Dave]

38. You seem to be OK with supporting AQ.

Drone warfare is an unconvetional attack, is Obama doing something wrong?

[jessie04]

47. proxy?? As they should ??

please dont hide your true feelings.

[Arctic Dave]

50. The US does this, all nation do this.

We didn't invade Iraq all by ourselves did we?

Israel needs to chill the f*ck out or risk a regional war.

NuttyYahoo needs to be replaced asap or he will destroy the entire place like bush did.

[leftynyc]

56. LOL - yes it's Israel that is fucking things

up. They're the reason 70,000 Syrians are dead. If they would only stay out of everyone's business, those people would still be alive and living in a thriving safe democracy. You sound deranged.

[Arctic Dave]

59. LOL.

Do you think a bunch of terrorist trying to overthrow a government was bloodless?

How many people died in our civil war?

Israel has demonstrated they are on the side of AQ.

[leftynyc]

60. Yup - definitely deranged

See if you can get anyone else to buy into your crackpot theories - try Glenn Beck and Alex Jones - they're right up your alley.

[Arctic Dave]

61. Aaaand ya got nothin.

NuttyYahoo is going to destroy israel just like bush almost detroyed the US.

We are still trying to unfucked the mess he made, I wonder how long it will take Israel to undo nutty's.

[leftynyc]

62. LOL - this is fun

It actually sounds like I have you frothing at the mouth (while claiming I got nothin). Both Israel and the US will be around long after you're worm food.

[Arctic Dave]

63. So will a lot of other countries.

Not exactly higher thinking needed for that. LOL.

Quick, turn in your Mensa application. I'm sure they are waiting for you.

[leftynyc]

64. You mean Israel wont be destroyed

by Bibi like you claimed upthread? Cant' keep track of your idiocy? And now, I'm afraid I have to end this although it has provided many laughs today. I wasted too much time on someone not worthy so I'm simply going to put you on ignore so I'm never tempted to waste my time again. Ta.

[Arctic Dave]

66. A very weak israel will be left.

Much like the US.

How crushing debt do you think they can handle?

[hack89]

6. No - the strike was aimed at Iran and Hezbollah.

they don't want a post-Assad ME with a stronger, more dangerous Hezbollah

[Arctic Dave]

9. Where is the proof?

Israel is a belligerent nation and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

[Renew Deal]

12. What does this mean? "Israel is a belligerent nation and needs to be dealt with accordingly."

What do you see as an approrpriate response? Spare us the "Syria can handle the details" line. That's a farce. You believe Israel has earned a response. What should it be?

[Arctic Dave]

13. I do not make those calls.

But I am sure there is someone who does. Just like there was someone who made the call for israel to use military agression against another country.

[John2]

18. OK,

I'll give it to you from a military perspective since I do have such a background. The military representative in Syria claims they will respond but in their own time, so Israel has to remain on alert when that possibility was less before. That response could come in any means militarily which the Syrians do have those capabilities.

Then you have to add in the Iranian military and Hezbullah capabilities. The Iranian and Hezbullah military also made threats against the enemies of Assad. So the attack on Syria in this conflict would be seen as an attack on all three. It also involves the intelligence Israel received to carry out such an attack where these alleged missiles were located. The claims are there was more than one military site and it also included several other structures not related to these missiles. So according to the Syrian side it was not as targeted as Israel claims. If so, then Israel would have been helping the rebels to overthrow the Assad regime. You have several entities supporting the rebels denying it, because the simple fact, Israel's involvement will make it harder to claim it wasn't a conspiracy by those involved to overthrow the Syrian Government from the start. Iran has also made the same charges against the U.S. as you are also seeing in Venezuela,North Korea, Pakistan and even some elements in Afghanistan.

It is the propaganda war by both sides to win public support, even with the case of chemical weapons. It is the Assad regime's whole theme about the problems in Syria. It is not jut isolated to Assad as people are trying to phrase it. You are talking about one man being the problem and taking him out, but this War has the potential to spread. You might also add in Iraq and potential regions in Africa. It is a real tender box. And lets not forget Russia and China with Secretary of State John Kerry flying around to shore up support for U.S. Policy. You also have Israel's Prime Minister flying to China. I also doubt Syria's military lets U.N. inspectors around their military sites while they are at War. Why would you expose where your capabilities are located?

[JDPriestly]

42. I see Israel as challenging Assad on a very personal and diplomatic basis:

Do you want to be our friend or face this choice: being overrun and ousted by the insurgents or continuing to govern but owing your existence to Iran and Hezbollah? Are you going to accept defeat, become completely indebted to and in servitude to Iran and Hezbollah or deal with us?

The likelihood that Israel and Assad could become friends doesn't seem very great, but Assad would be much better off if, with Israel's help,he sent Hezbollah and Iran packing and made peace. Both Assad an Israel would be better off.

It's far-fetched that Assad will choose to ally himself with Israel. But Assad would be smart to take the offer -- under the table of course.

If Assad does not take Israel's veiled offer up, Israel is warning that it will not sit back and wait to be attacked by Syria after Assad has been ousted and the insurgents and/or Hezbollah have taken over.

So, Assad is faced with win/win (secret) cooperation with Israel or a lose/lose exit from Syria.

I bet that Assad will leave and Israel will have to face off with the insurgents and Hezbollah on its own. But the gamble to get involved now and make this very hazy "offer" to Assad may be worth it to Israel.

Because Israel, contrary to the opinions of many on this board, wants and needs peace more than any country in the region.

Israel is alone, very alone. And constantly in danger. It is like the least popular kid in its class and the smallest to boot. It has survived only because of its superior patience, cunning, organization, unity and its ancient will to live as a people. It's very hard to defeat the history and culture of the Jewish people. Many have tried. No one has succeeded.

The unrest in Syria is a threat to the very life of Assad. And it is not good for Israel. In fact, it is a great danger to Israel. It is no wonder that Israel is becoming actively involved. The moment this started, Israel was involved -- and at great risk. Getting involved was not a choice for Israel. The timing is, and that is why I see in this attack both an offer to Assad and a warning.

[hack89]

14. Every nation there is a belligerent nation

or have you missed the pass 60 years.

Israel was happy with Assad - he was a know quantity that did not represent a direct threat to Israel. Israel does not want another Gaza on their northern border. Rocket attacks from an Islamic governed Syria would mean a bloody war. Plus if Syria goes then Lebanon will almost certainly fall into civil war - Hezbollah would be fighting for their very survival with the disappearance of their Syrian sponsor and protector.

This attack was all about Israel insuring that Hezbollah does not get more powerful.

[Arctic Dave]

40. Hezbollah is already powerful enough.

What Irael did was to provoke a wider war and help AQ establish another foothold.

Very, very stupid and shortsided but what do you expect with NuttyYahoo in power.

[hack89]

44. No - they want rockets that can reach all parts of Israel

they can't do that yet. They also want modern surface to air missiles.

Hezbollah has to be dealt with eventually - no point in letting them get more powerful.

[JDPriestly]

36. But Israelis will tell you that Hezbollah and Iran are belligerent countries and should be dealt

with accordingly. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Israel is not just thinking in terms of military strategy here. It is making an offer to Assad that Assad would be a fool to refuse. That's my opinion.

[Arctic Dave]

41. Israel is being stupid then and falling into their own trap.

That's what happens when you have idiot neocons like nuttyYahoo in power. Like bush, he only wants war and he doesn't care about the outcome.

Bombing a military base repeatedly is an act of war and only helping advance a regional conflict. Not to mention helping AQ establish another foothold. If Israel thinks that is better then Hezbollah then they have lost their collective minds.

[leftynyc]

19. Syria aint gonna do anything

and Israel was keeping missles away from hezbollah. Only the very dimmest of people would see this as a bad thing and try and tie Israel to AQ. Utter and complete nonsense.

[Arctic Dave]

23. Where is the proof?

Israel, as usual, is a belligerent state attacking and killing people in other countries.

[leftynyc]

31. Yawn

Keep defending Assad (a murderer of 70,000 of their own people) or is it al queda that has your heart? You blaming Israel for a well deserved air strike shows everyone where you're coming from.

[Arctic Dave]

37. Yawn. You got nothing.

AQ and other terrorist are trying to overthrow the government. What do you think the US's response would be if that was happening.

You seem to be in favor of AQ having another country under their control. Why is that?

[leftynyc]

45. For Heaven's sake

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN PEOPLE'S MOUTHS. How many more times do I have to post I don't give a shit who wins where because they both suck? How about that Arab League? Nothing but a bunch of handwringers when there are massacres in their backyard - aren't they lovely? But I see quite clearly you favor dictators killing their own people over terrorist groups - I guess you felt you needed to pick a side - I don't have that need.

[donquijoterocket]

39. I've

Never been quite sure of who we are supposed to fear for Israel's sake Hezbollah or Hamas? Since Hamas was an Israeli creation they lost control of
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html How do we know Hezbollah was not the same sort of thing.Just one more instrumentality Israel could use to avoid serious peace negotiations and maintain their belligerent military stance and actions with the U.S.backing them regardless of what they do and who they kill.

[leftynyc]

49. Hey, you want to defend

hamas or hezbollah, knock yourself out.

[jakeXT]

16. Now that we know the Syrian air defense is useless, just like in 2007

“The Israeli strikes over the last 48 hours have indicated that those Russian air defense systems (in Syria) are not as robust as they are sometimes reported to be. We can stop Bashar al-Assad from killing his own people, and we can stop some of the worst violence in Syria," he said.

Cotton spoke on NBC’s Meet the Press. Also appearing on the program was Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, who agreed that Israel’s actions have exposed weaknesses in Syrian air defenses. But he cautioned that other actions the United States could take - like arming Syrian rebels - are not without risks.

http://www.voanews.com/content/israel-air-strikes-syria-possible-us-action/1655022.html

"This is not Libya," said Nancy Pelosi, the senior Democrat in the House of Representatives, referring to the relative ease with which a NATO bombing campaign helped overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. "The Syrians have anti-aircraft capability that makes going in there much more challenging."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4373104,00.html

[John2]

21. A counter to that is the

Syrian air defenses was not on alert and did not expect those attacks. Syria does have an Air Force also. There were no planes that intercepted this attack. It was a surprise attack and the Israeli Air force evaded radar. Do you have any evidence the Syrian Air Force has been completely taken out in this War?

[pampango]

51. Well they certainly proved useless in 2007 and again in 2013, but that analysis may lead to

dangerous thinking. From my reading Assad's anti-aircraft capabilities are largely in and around cities, as are his tanks and artillery. Even if his air defenses continued to be as useless as they have been to date, the process of taking them out and/or going after tanks and artillery will kill so many civilians that it would be a disaster.

I would not want to be Syria's Air Force commander right now. Those shiny new MIGs that were supposed to be used to protect against or attack Israel are instead being used against Syrians, while the Israeli Air Force does whatever it wants to. OTOH, maybe Assad is happy with the focus of Syria's jets. He's not worried about Israel trying to get rid of him, so if their planes blow up some missiles that were not even his anyway, he can live with that.

[jakeXT]

52. It worked with those old Turkish jets

But maybe they were just probing then, and Syria doesn't want to show all of their radar positions now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft

[pampango]

53. That's true about the Turkish jets, but I doubt they intentionally did not use their radar or

scramble any jets just to save them from destruction. He would certainly have been a hero in the eyes of many if he had shot down some Israeli aircraft.

I think it is more likely that either their air defenses are bad (in which case he needs to upgrade it), their attention is diverted elsewhere (but may not be in the future) or Assad does not see Israel as an existential threat to him. He has much greater threats elsewhere that he wants his jets targeting, so he does not want to waste military resources against a force that is no real threat to him.

[Celefin]

22. Why are so many here ok with bombing runs of one country into the heartland of another?

Seriously, next time a British businessman breaks the embargo on dealing with Iran (here in the case of the oil industry) http://www.economist.com/news/business/21574540-how-iranian-companies-manage-keep-trading-foreigners-around-block (maybe even with 'dual use') goods thus representing a direct threat to Israel after the common logic , should they be allowed to bomb his warehouse in the middle of London?

If their intelligence is that good, why not at least wait to target the shipments en-route?

[Comrade Grumpy]

27. Because Israel is special, just like the US. Normal rules don't apply and might makes right.

[leftynyc]

32. I'm for anything

that keeps missiles out of the hands of hezbollah. Any other questions?

[Comrade Grumpy]

34. Yeah. What missiles? Has Israel provided any evidence of its claims?

Or do we just take them at their word?

And if so, does that apply to other countries as well?

[leftynyc]

46. I'm guessing they

showed the evidence to the US which is why they aren't saying boo about this. That's fine by me. I don't believe in having a foreign policy that covers everyone - each situation is different so hypotheticals are meaningless.

[Comrade Grumpy]

57. Are you going to say hypotheticals are meaningless when...

...someone preemptively rockets Israel in self-defense? I guess fair is fair, huh?

[leftynyc]

58. If they wish to stay part of planet earth,

they probably wont be doing that any time soon....but I guess you never know...perhaps one of the leaders would be happy leading an entire country to martyrdom and their 71 virgins.

[pampango]

35. Indeed keeping missiles out of the hands of terrorists is a good argument we hear against arming the

Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles. Obama is wise not to supply them to the opposition. Assad would be wise not to supply them to terrorists, either.

[leftynyc]

48. I'm against the US

getting involved in Syria at all. Both sides suck. Israel has them in their backyard so it's an entirely different ballgame.

[Celefin]

68. I'm with you both on this issue

All countries should stay out of other countries internal strife, period.
The likelihood of making matters worse is much greater than of achieving any positive development.

What I'm worried about that this way of doing things is becoming the norm... I guess the use of drones the world over has got everybody used to the idea of surgical interventions 'free' of repercussions.

Israel's action in this case can be justified I guess, though I don't have to agree with it and can't see how it really helps their cause.

[Celefin]

67. No further questions, no.

It's just that in my opinion this logic is extremely counterproductive and part of the core of the whole mess.
I can see your point though, really.
I just can't see how this helps anything; and if its accepted internationally as how you do things then everybody should allow everybody else to bomb the hell out of whatever they think is connected to some kind of organization rightly or wrongly labeled terrorist.
Now don't get me wrong, please. I'm not disagreeing with you on Hezbollah.

[leftynyc]

70. I understand your position also

It's heartbreaking to see the damage this civil war is causing....people dying, hurt, including children. But we are not the worlds police - there is an Arab League that is right in the neighborhood and if they want to be seen as nothing but a bunch of handwringing assholes, they're off to a good start doing nothing about this. It's simply not worth even one US life as on one side you have a murderous dictator and the other are groups of people - including al queda who will bring an Islamic nation into being - one which will be brutal for women (as all countries that use Shariah law are) - who would we be fighting for? What would be the result? That's also my objection.

That's a different issue from Israel having this going on next door and using missile strikes to make sure the long range missiles don't get into the hands of hezbollah - they are in a position to do this and I have no problem with that. Even a no fly zone would be dangerous to the US military (or NATO). So I no patience for those who are trashing Israel for what they did - it was the right thing for Israel to do (which is why the outcry is only being heard from boards such as this one and not from anyone who could actually do something about it).

[JDPriestly]

43. Because this is about war and about Israel's survival and not about some

abstract international embargo.

If Assad goes, Israel will be left to pick up the pieces. Israel might as well put its thumb on the scale right now. Maybe it can shift the balance in Syria one way or the other. Israel is testing the waters. Who is willing to make a deal? This is a very, very sad situation. Lots of children and families will suffer, are suffering in Syria.

Israel did not start the problems in Syria. It is responding to them. Let's remember that fundamental fact.

[John2]

55. I'm American,

and I don't think personally individual Americans owe anything to Israel, but I think our Government does. That appears conflicting but I think the Policies of our Government helped to create this situation in the Middle East and the U.S. is responsible for their Security. I just think U.S. policies on confrontation instead of Diplomacy has made the situation more dangerous for Israel.

I simply don't think Israel can defeat every country in that region without the help of the United States and others in the West. Sure their military is very powerful, but how did they acquire it? The weapons system they have and arms require the costs of Billions, maybe even Trillions of dollars over the years. They started out as a resistance force themselves after World War II. They was able to get sophisticated weapons very quickly to subdue the Arabs in their earlier Wars. So you can say Israel git its start similar to the groups they are labeling Terrorists now. It started out seeking a homeland for displaced Jews of the Holocaust in World War II into this. The people already in the Region objected. Those opposing Israel claims they were a Zionist plot by the United States and the West after World War II. Britain warned and advised the United States this would happen. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and that is why I blame the United States Government and believe they are ultimately responsible for the security of the Israeli people. Confrontation with the people in the area is making it worse through rightwing bias Policies. How we conquered the West is not going to work in this Day and Age, because Genocide is out of the question.

Iran is the Key. There needs to be direct talks with the Iranian Government and people. That is a country with 76 million people and the next most powerful military in the area besides Israel. If President Obama can talk to rightwing extremist in our Congress, then he can open talks with Iran. You get anywhere with the Iranians, they can influence the region and Hezbullah. Our relations was crippled by overthrowing an elected official and installing a Dictator. That gave the religious leaders within Iran an issue to denounce the United States. What was done after 1948 is done. All sides need to get over it in the name of Peace. The Iranians who were once the Persians are an intelligent people. The most part of Diplomacy is you got to open the door first. Not willing to talk to your enemy is ridiculous. When Obama was elected, the first olive leaf Iran's President gave to him was having a dialog. He should have took it without any pre- conditions for the sake of Peace. If you can change the minds of the Chinese, Russians and Vietnamese or Japan, then you can change the minds of the Mullahs. President Clinton was on the right track when he started a dialog between the PLO and Israel. It got interrupted by rightwingers and hardliners on both sides. That don't mean you give up though.

[JDPriestly]

65. Israel is an ally of the US, like France, England and many other allies that we have

defended throughout history.

Our alliance with Israel is not one-way. It is reciprocated. In particular, Israel is a source of technology for the US. It is also our eyes and ears in the Middle East.

If other countries in the Middle East were as allied and supportive of us as Israel is, they might be able to count on our support also. We are on pretty good terms with Jordan and get along OK with Kuwait and a number of other countries in the area.

[Celefin]

69. Well, yes.

Of course Israel did not start the problems in Syria, I'm certainly not disputing that.

I just fail to see how actions like these would shift the balance in favor of any country doing them, not just Israel.
The opposite is the case as has been demonstrated time after time.
On the other hand, when you're universally hated in an entire region it probably doesn't change much and you can always say that things can only get better, no matter what you do or refrain from.
It's not that Israel doesn't have a very good justification (much better than most others engaging in this kind of thing), but how is this going to solve anything, really?

Anyway, what my original post was about is that I'm wondering when we started regarding actions like this as norm.
But then I'm probably just old fashioned.

Have a good one anyway and thanks for the measured reply.

[hack89]

71. They are looking ahead to a post Assad Syria

One likely outcome is civil war in Lebanon - Syria has been the power broker there for decades with Hezbollah their primary proxy. With a pro-Hezbollah Syria out of the picture, the balance of power is broken and the results could very well be another civil war. In that scenario, anything that Israel can do to prevent Hezbollah from getting more sophisticated weapons from Syria the better.

[magellan]

54. I guess pre-emptive reactionary stuff does require explaining sometimes

Too bad there isn't anyone in the Middle East who'll choose to see Israel's actions as anything but provocative.