Is Turkey preparing to open a Military front against Al-Assad

[STURM]

Now with respect to Israel and Turkey both of the can virtually do what ever they want to do to Syria if they would intervene for whatever reason.

Obama managed a Israeli/Turkish rapprochement so it will be safe to assume that both countries will ''co-operate'' iver Syria.

John Kerry says Assad's Syria regime HAS used sarin chemical weapons against rebels - despite Barack Obama insisting that was a 'red line' for US - Middle East - World - The Independent

After reading this, the first question that comes to my mind is what the response of the West, the Arab League and the UN would be if Syrian rebels manage to capture some chemicals and use them against the Assad forces?

There is all this talk about the need to prevent the chemicals from falling into the ''wrong hands'' - reading between the lines the message is that as long as Assad's forces secure their chemicals then they're in the ''right hands''!!

http://www.agenceglobal.com/index.php?show=article&Tid=3017

http://www.agenceglobal.com/index.php?show=article&Tid=3013

 

[Volkodav]

Obama managed a Israeli/Turkish rapprochement so it will be safe to assume that both countries will ''co-operate'' iver Syria.

John Kerry says Assad's Syria regime HAS used sarin chemical weapons against rebels - despite Barack Obama insisting that was a 'red line' for US - Middle East - World - The Independent

After reading this, the first question that comes to my mind is what the response of the West, the Arab League and the UN would be if Syrian rebels manage to capture some chemicals and use them against the Assad forces?

There is all this talk about the need to prevent the chemicals from falling into the ''wrong hands'' - reading between the lines the message is that as long as Assad's forces secure their chemicals then they're in the ''right hands''!!

Agence Global-Article

Agence Global-Article

I hate to say it but in a strategic sense the use of chemical weapons against the rebels by Assad could actually be to the West's long term advantage as it prevents AQ sponsored elements gaining the upper hand, justifies equipment sales to Israel and damages Syria's (and accordingly Iran's) standing in the region.

 

[Beatmaster]

I hate to say it but in a strategic sense the use of chemical weapons against the rebels by Assad could actually be to the West's long term advantage as it prevents AQ sponsored elements gaining the upper hand, justifies equipment sales to Israel and damages Syria's (and accordingly Iran's) standing in the region.

Well we all did hear on the news about Obama's so called "red line".
Which says that if Assad is using chemical weapons, or they are being moved in a way that does not suit the scenario then this would be the "red line" for the US and some of its partners do something.

That being i have to admit that Volkodav has a valid point here, using these weapons is considered inhumane and outlawed, but on the flip side it would keep AQ elements contained.
However there also lies a HUGE danger, because AQ has proven to be highly flexible with the limited assets they have, but you got to give them some credits for being able to adapt.
And these chemicals could fall into the VERY wrong hands, if Assad losses control.

Still i maintain what i said in my previous post, the US, west and the international community failed to deal with the situation while that VETO by Russia and China did not make things easier.
However US (And partners) knew from day one that Russia and China would VETO and form of intervention/regime change in Syria....so putting the whole issue up for UN council to work with was not going to work no matter what they would plan and work out.
So side stepping the UN (Or better said side stepping the VETO power of China and Russia) by dealing with it on a regional level together with Arab League could have been far more effective and could project perhaps even more pressure on Assad then any other solution.
Imo chemicals weapons where the next step and we sort of all knew that this was going to happen one day.
So either the US and the International community was waiting for this moment so they could bypass the VETO of Russia and China as using these kinds of weapons going beyond any VETO justification.
Or the US misunderstood the whole situation and basically messed up (Again) for whatever reason.

So my question stands: Beside the VETO from Russia and China why on earth would Assad be allowed to carry on like this while there are different ways of stopping the situation by for example using the Arab league.
Personally i think with Turkey and Israel right next to Syria there would have been some serious options to consider as both have serious interest in a peaceful Syria.
Both have the means and the resources and the justification to act if needed and with some help of Uncle Sam or the Arab League or even the EU.
Things could have been avoided or at least changed to a less dramatic situation.
I mean the US loves to make deals...so perhaps that would be a nice "lets make a deal" moment.

Sarcastic? Yes
But sadly true.

 

[Beatmaster]

I hate to say it but in a strategic sense the use of chemical weapons against the rebels by Assad could actually be to the West's long term advantage as it prevents AQ sponsored elements gaining the upper hand, justifies equipment sales to Israel and damages Syria's (and accordingly Iran's) standing in the region.

Well we all did hear on the news about Obama's so called "red line".
Which says that if Assad is using chemical weapons, or they are being moved in a way that does not suit the scenario then this would be the "red line" for the US and some of its partners do something.

That being i have to admit that Volkodav has a valid point here, using these weapons is considered inhumane and outlawed, but on the flip side it would keep AQ elements contained.
However there also lies a HUGE danger, because AQ has proven to be highly flexible with the limited assets they have, but you got to give them some credits for being able to adapt.
And these chemicals could fall into the VERY wrong hands, if Assad losses control.

Still i maintain what i said in my previous post, the US, west and the international community failed to deal with the situation while that VETO by Russia and China did not make things easier.
However US (And partners) knew from day one that Russia and China would VETO and form of intervention/regime change in Syria....so putting the whole issue up for UN council to work with was not going to work no matter what they would plan and work out.
So side stepping the UN (Or better said side stepping the VETO power of China and Russia) by dealing with it on a regional level together with Arab League could have been far more effective and could project perhaps even more pressure on Assad then any other solution.
Imo chemicals weapons where the next step and we sort of all knew that this was going to happen one day.
So either the US and the International community was waiting for this moment so they could bypass the VETO of Russia and China as using these kinds of weapons going beyond any VETO justification.
Or the US misunderstood the whole situation and basically messed up (Again) for whatever reason.

So my question stands: Beside the VETO from Russia and China why on earth would Assad be allowed to carry on like this while there are different ways of stopping the situation by for example using the Arab league.
Personally i think with Turkey and Israel right next to Syria there would have been some serious options to consider as both have serious interest in a peaceful Syria.
Both have the means and the resources and the justification to act if needed and with some help of Uncle Sam or the Arab League or even the EU.
Things could have been avoided or at least changed to a less dramatic situation.

 

[explorer9]

After closely watching the unfolding of post Arab awaking incidents in the Levant and Iraq with its tiding effect on the other regional countries and blocks, I personally reckon that the West in general and the United States in particular does not want to end the conflict in the Levant and in Iraq for the broader regional vision.

The longevity and escalation of Syrian conflict has imploded the underbelly of the region where long under carpeted Shiet-Sunnite strife came out open on the streets. The escalation of conflict will further divide the people of the region and will grip the countries especially those with significant Shiet and Sunnite population mix.

Post US invasion Iraq is already gloomed with sectarian killings where politician have already divided the region on sectarian line. Syrian conflict have escalated the political tensions further in to the ordinary citizens and divvied the citizenry on sectarian leaning. Lebanon is another country which his feeling the brunt of syrian conflict where Shiet Hezbollah came in open to fight with the Syrian regime and Sunnite of Lebanon are backing the opponents of the Syrian regime.

The vision of anti Al-Assad regional countries differs from the western vision of the region. West does not want stable and powerful countries and blocks in the region who can question there hegemony in the regional matters.

Common anti Iran stand does not necessarily bring them towards common Syrian approach. The only country with west has common interest on the regional issues is Israel. Israel would want the aggravated regional conflict so that it can rein the region without forthcoming military threat to his hegemony in the region.

If we go back in to the history of events in the Levant and Iraq we find that the preeminence of the regional power can solve the problem of the said region. These lands were divided to suit the indirect western control of the spoils and the survival of the State of Israel.

@ beastmaster

The above mentioned points stops the West and US to bring to the end of conflict.....

 

[SteelTiger 177]

I wonder what NATO and Obama are going to say about this?I remember when Turkey invaded Cypurus in 1974.Greece and some in NATO were very upset over what Turkey had done.

 

[My2Cents]

I wonder what NATO and Obama are going to say about this?I remember when Turkey invaded Cypurus in 1974.Greece and some in NATO were very upset over what Turkey had done.

Greece and Turkey are both members of NATO, which was naturally upset when its members started fighting each other instead of staying prepared to defend against the Warsaw Pact.

Greece was upset because Turkey had counter the coup d'état they had just staged on Cyprus. It also lead to the fall of the ruling military junta in Athens, so it wasn't all bad.

As for the current crisis, everyone seems to be hoping someone else will take the initiative and goes first so they cannot be blamed when things don't turn out as predicted at the start. That's politics as usual.

 

[STURM]

I hate to say it but in a strategic sense the use of chemical weapons against the rebels by Assad could actually be to the West's long term advantage as it prevents AQ sponsored elements gaining the upper hand, justifies equipment sales to Israel and damages Syria's (and accordingly Iran's) standing in the region.

Assuming that chemicals have indeed been used, we first have to find out if they were used by units acting under their own authority or under orders of Damascus. For me, the big question is what the West, the Arab League, the UN and NATO will do if certain rebel groups [the ones the West and its allies in the Arab League calls ''extremists'' and ''Islamists''] capture chemicals and use them not only against Assad's blokes but also against other rebel groups. Will there be talk of a ''red line'' that has been crossed?

Israel would want the aggravated regional conflict so that it can rein the region without forthcoming military threat to his hegemony in the region.

And despite its expressions of horror and concern over what is happening, the Israeli's would prefer Assad or another ''strongman'' in power, as opposed to a ''democratic'' government in Damascus. With another 'strongman'' the Israeli's know what to expect but with a ''democratic'' government, it would be somewhat uncomfortable if the new Syrian government declares that relations with Israel will only be established AFTER Israel abides by a longstanding UN Resoulution and gives back the Golan Heights..... And it will be more uncomfortable if the new Syrian government says that there will not be relations until after the Palestinians get their state. And what will the Israeli's, the Aeab League and the West do if a ''democratic'' Syrian government says that it will not ditch its friends in Iran and the Lebanon.

These articles remind us that there are always 2 sides to each coin. Whilst the Home Office and the State Department may want us to believe that the situation in Syria is a classic case of bad/evil chaps vs good/freedom loving chaps, the actual situation is much more complicated than that.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-syria-so-why-is-it-all-the-same-8591455.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...claims-have-a-very-familiar-ring-8591214.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-fisk-reports-from-inside-syria-8590636.html

 

[explorer9]

Assuming that chemicals have indeed been used, we first have to find out if they were used by units acting under their own authority or under orders of Damascus. For me, the big question is what the West, the Arab League, the UN and NATO will do if certain rebel groups [the ones the West and its allies in the Arab League calls ''extremists'' and ''Islamists''] capture chemicals and use them not only against Assad's blokes but also against other rebel groups. Will there be talk of a ''red line'' that has been crossed?



And despite its expressions of horror and concern over what is happening, the Israeli's would prefer Assad or another ''strongman'' in power, as opposed to a ''democratic'' government in Damascus. With another 'strongman'' the Israeli's know what to expect but with a ''democratic'' government, it would be somewhat uncomfortable if the new Syrian government declares that relations with Israel will only be established AFTER Israel abides by a longstanding UN Resoulution and gives back the Golan Heights..... And it will be more uncomfortable if the new Syrian government says that there will not be relations until after the Palestinians get their state. And what will the Israeli's, the Aeab League and the West do if a ''democratic'' Syrian government says that it will not ditch its friends in Iran and the Lebanon.

These articles remind us that there are always 2 sides to each coin. Whilst the Home Office and the State Department may want us to believe that the situation in Syria is a classic case of bad/evil chaps vs good/freedom loving chaps, the actual situation is much more complicated than that.

Robert Fisk: This was supposed to be a 'game changer' week in Syria, so why is it all the same? - Comment - Voices - The Independent

Syria and sarin gas: US claims have a very familiar ring - Middle East - World - The Independent

They may be fighting for Syria, not Assad. They may also be winning: Robert Fisk reports from inside Syria - Middle East - World - The Independent

One more important point needs to addressed here is intra-Islamic conflict and its settlement in the favor of mainstream Islamic group that is Sunnite Islam. If we go in to the Islamic history all the strong sultans conquered the states ruled by deviant rulers then they marched towards the other challenging or hegemonic empires. IMHO the ongoing Syrian conflict will first settle in the favor of undisputed leader of the Muslim Middle East (that will emerge from the conflict) later the region will consolidate under that leader and will finally march towards the Israel.

 

[STURM]

The problem here is that the ''West'' would like the new rulers of Syria to be freedom loving democrats [not too ''democratic'' off course as that would troublesome] but the ''allies'' in the Gulf States have different ideas - the last thing they want is for a future Syria to be truly democratic as some of the ''democratic'' ideas and principles might ''infect''' their own citizens. One of the first countries - apart from the Syrian government off course - to speak about the dangers of the uprising being hijacked by ''extremists'' and ''Islamists'' was Russia.

IMHO the ongoing Syrian conflict will first settle in the favor of undisputed leader of the Muslim Middle East (that will emerge from the conflict) later the region will consolidate under that leader and will finally march towards the Israel.

You must as well hope for cows to start flying because what you described will never happen. First of all in recent history, Arab unity has never existed and is a myth. Secondly, all these countries have better things to do than to march to Israel, which would also be counter productive to regime survival, which is their main goal. If they march to anywhere it will be to depose the secular and ''decadent'' Kings in the Gulf who were never elected in the first place.

Now that a Israeli/Turkish rapprochement has been reached it will be interesting to see what both countries will do if the tables start to turn against the rebels. And off course it will be also interesting to see what the response of the West and its Arab ''allies'' will be if Assad makes a big comeback on the battlefield. My personal hunch is that if things drag on indefinitely with negative over the border consequences for those intent on Assad's demise, a deal will be reached with Assad, with the support and help of Russia. The only thing for certain is that Syria will never be the same again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22285555

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/middle-east/why-syrias-assad-worried-about-jordan

 

[explorer9]

The problem here is that the ''West'' would like the new rulers of Syria to be freedom loving democrats [not too ''democratic'' off course as that would troublesome] but the ''allies'' in the Gulf States have different ideas - the last thing they want is for a future Syria to be truly democratic as some of the ''democratic'' ideas and principles might ''infect''' their own citizens. One of the first countries - apart from the Syrian government off course - to speak about the dangers of the uprising being hijacked by ''extremists'' and ''Islamists'' was Russia.



You must as well hope for cows to start flying because what you described will never happen. First of all in recent history, Arab unity has never existed and is a myth. Secondly, all these countries have better things to do than to march to Israel, which would also be counter productive to regime survival, which is their main goal. If they march to anywhere it will be to depose the secular and ''decadent'' Kings in the Gulf who were never elected in the first place.

Now that a Israeli/Turkish rapprochement has been reached it will be interesting to see what both countries will do if the tables start to turn against the rebels. And off course it will be also interesting to see what the response of the West and its Arab ''allies'' will be if Assad makes a big comeback on the battlefield. My personal hunch is that if things drag on indefinitely with negative over the border consequences for those intent on Assad's demise, a deal will be reached with Assad, with the support and help of Russia. The only thing for certain is that Syria will never be the same again.

BBC News - Covert help for Syria's rebels in Jordan

Why Syria's Assad is worried about Jordan - Al Jazeera Blogs

What I precisely meant is that west cannot back the dictators and despots of its liking and oppose that do not fit in its geopolitics. There will be time when the monarchs will also be deposed and the rulers elected and likened by the masses will come in to power. The dictators and monarchs are the best bet to keep dividing the region in to small states.

I have never accredited Arab nationalism and it’s been long dead there will only be Islamic nationalism that seems to be emerging from the regional tumult. As I said before the transition phase will be bit long and may extend to decade or so. Meanwhile region will start settling under the aegis of one or two dominant forces with Islamic fervor and finally these forces will march towards Israel as their minds and hearts had never accepted Israel as a legitimate state.

 

[STURM]

What I precisely meant is that west cannot back the dictators and despots of its liking and oppose that do not fit in its geopolitics.

It has for a very long time and will continue to do so, despite this policy being damaging to its long term interests and the people who actually live there [I don't need to mention that most countries there are artificial creations drawn up by Europeans for their own benefit against the wishes of the locals]. Not my intention to touch politics but a very large part of the discontent that exists is due to the unresolved Palestinian issue and the fact that leaders who were never elected continue to receive the backing of the ''West''. Another issue is the presence of Western troops on Arab lands, they should leave - but this will not happen as the ''West'' will want to remain in the area and the Gulf Sheikhs and Kings will want insurance against the prospects of regime change from within, against other Arab states and against the ''evil'' and ''heretic'' Iranians.

 

[STURM]

Meanwhile region will start settling under the aegis of one or two dominant forces with Islamic fervor and finally these forces will march towards Israel as their minds and hearts had never accepted Israel as a legitimate state.

Nonsense. This isn't the 1950's, 1960's or 1970's anymore and traditionally the Arabs have been more concerned with each other than with Israel. Even the Yom Kippur or October War was launched with the intention of taking back the Golan [the Syrian aim] and taking back the Sinai to jump start the peace talks [the Egyptian aim] - it was not launched to exterminate Israel as the Arabs, despite their rhetoric and propaganda were under no illusions they could. Since the 1970's all have accepted the fact that Israel is the dominant power and has the unconditional support of Uncle Sam, but all would be uncomfortable if a fellow Arab state got to powerful. Some Arab states actually welcome a strong Israel as a counterweight against other Arab countries - remember the events that took place after Black September?

Again, a lot depends on the unresolved Palestine issue, if this was finally resolved at lot of the anger and discontent that currently exists would go away and groups like AQ [which have already been made irrelevant by the Arab Spring] will have less recruits and supporters to draw on. Notice that the people in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Syria didn't even mention Israel or a future ''Caliphate'' when they revolted, their anger was towards their rulers.... The average Arab on the street wants the good life and wants more say in the running of their country, that is their aim, not marching to Israel or forming a ''Caliphate'' that will stretch from the shores of North Africa to the Gulf of Oman. And in case you bring it up, the question of legitimacy for the Arabs is mainly because to recognise Israel, would be to recognise and give legitimacy to its continued occupation of Arab lands [in defiance of UN Resolution 242 and international law]. Even Hamas [which initially received Israeli approval as an alternative to the corrupt and ineffective Fatah has said repeatedly that it is willing to talk if the conditions are right]. And which Israel do the Arab states recognise, the borders of pre-1967 Israel or the borders of post-1967 Israel??

 

[swerve]

...Meanwhile region will start settling under the aegis of one or two dominant forces with Islamic fervor and finally these forces will march towards Israel as their minds and hearts had never accepted Israel as a legitimate state.

Funnily enough, the domination of the region by one or two major states with a determination to destroy Israel was predicted over 50 years ago. The only thing which has changed is that it started out as Pan-Arab nationalist/Arab socialist/Ba'athist, & now it's confidently predicted to be Islamist. The ideology du jour has changed, but it hasn't changed the prediction.

In reality, there's no more reason to believe in the unification of anti-Israeli forces under an Islamist banner than there was to believe it would happen under any of the previous banners. None of the social or political barriers to unity have diminished.

 

[explorer9]

Arab nationalism / Bathism had nothing to do with the popular public sentiment of ordinary Arabs and were created under the false guise of Arab supremacy. All other ethnic groups viz Turks/Kurds/ Persians, in the region have also found solace of ethnic nationalism. The common factor in all the ethnic groups is that all of them are against the existence of the Israeli state.

Predominant majority of the region does not recognize Israel as a legitimate State. If you closely watch the recent events occurring in the region then you would realize that ethnic nationalism is receding and is overtaken by Islamic Nationalism based on majorly Shiet/Sunnite sect. Shiets are siding with their Shiet brethren of any ethnicity be it Persian /Arab/Azeri/Kurd/Turkmen and Sunnites of different ethnicities are siding with their Sunnite brethren and that feud/bond will definitely strengthen in the coming future.

Pre 67 boundary settlement is a terminology used by many regional powers to get settle the issue till the creation of effective Palestinian State and believe me it would not be accepted by majority as a permanent settlement. The term Hamas use against the truce with Israel is a Arabic word “Hudna” its literal meaning is temporary peace.

What I tried to elucidate in my previous posts that this intra-Islamic strife will be long drawn war and may take a decade or so to get settled in the favor of majority sect (Sunnites). After gaining control of the regional steppes the same victorious power (s) will march towards the common enemy and that common enemy is none other than the State of Israel.

 

[STURM]

The common factor in all the ethnic groups is that all of them are against the existence of the Israeli state.

Not true at all - you're being too simplistic and very inaccurate. Your statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny as previous events in the region have shown. By your reasoning, people in Tunisia, Syria, Bahrain and Egypt would have revolted, not because they were fed up with their corrupt and brutal rulers but because their rulers were doing nothing to force Israel to reach a settlement with the Palestinians and to ''destroy'' Israel, whilst at the same time being chums with Uncle Sam.

As I've pointed out before - never mind nationalism, ideology or religon - the vast majority of Arabs have come to terms with Israel being a permanent entity, the most dominant miltary power AND certain Arab states are very comortable with this because Israel acts as a counter balance against other Arab countries and against the Iranians.

Predominant majority of the region does not recognize Israel as a legitimate State.

Speak for yourself but not for Arabs in general.

As I've explained, the main reason the majority of Arabs are against officially recognising Israel as a legitimate state is because Israel continues to occupy land it does not own in violation of international law and as a result the Palestinians are denied a place they can call home, sounds simplistic but it also happens to be very true - not because the Arabs still harbour hopes of driving the Israelis to the Med. Do not give the impression that ordinary Arabs walk along the streets chanting ''death to Israel'' all day and sleep at night having dreams of carpet bombing Haifa and Eilat. Most Arabs have more pressing concerns to address and their leaders are more focused on regime survival.

The term Hamas use against the truce with Israel is a Arabic word “Hudna” its literal meaning is temporary peace.

It is a term to signify that whatever truce is in place is ''temporary' until the next round of hostilities or until a hegotiated settlement is finally achieved - the term does NOT signify that Hamas is waiting for the day to destroy Israel.....

 

[StobieWan]

This is by the by - Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria have all marched on Israel simultaneously before now and failed, often quite miserably. I don't see much has changed to facilitate an Arab victory.

 

[explorer9]

Not true at all - you're being too simplistic and very inaccurate. Your statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny as previous events in the region have shown. By your reasoning, people in Tunisia, Syria, Bahrain and Egypt would have revolted, not because they were fed up with their corrupt and brutal rulers but because their rulers were doing nothing to force Israel to reach a settlement with the Palestinians and to ''destroy'' Israel, whilst at the same time being chums with Uncle Sam.

As I've pointed out before - never mind nationalism, ideology or religon - the vast majority of Arabs have come to terms with Israel being a permanent entity, the most dominant miltary power AND certain Arab states are very comortable with this because Israel acts as a counter balance against other Arab countries and against the Iranians.



Speak for yourself but not for Arabs in general.

As I've explained, the main reason the majority of Arabs are against officially recognising Israel as a legitimate state is because Israel continues to occupy land it does not own in violation of international law and as a result the Palestinians are denied a place they can call home, sounds simplistic but it also happens to be very true - not because the Arabs still harbour hopes of driving the Israelis to the Med. Do not give the impression that ordinary Arabs walk along the streets chanting ''death to Israel'' all day and sleep at night having dreams of carpet bombing Haifa and Eilat. Most Arabs have more pressing concerns to address and their leaders are more focused on regime survival.



It is a term to signify that whatever truce is in place is ''temporary' until the next round of hostilities or until a hegotiated settlement is finally achieved - the term does NOT signify that Hamas is waiting for the day to destroy Israel.....

Israel is a political reality and whole region knows that very well, what I tried to explain is the domino effect of changes that are taking place in the region. Do not buy what Morsi and MB says about Camp David today and what Erdogan says after Israeli apology for the Killings of Turks on Mavi Marmara. Functioning Palestinian State based on pre 1967 borders is the first step to recapture the Jerusalem and whole Israel back to Islamic fold. Most of the people in the region are waiting for another Saladin to do so.

It’s better to study the charter of HAMAS and Islamic Jihad first, only Turkey, Egypt and Jordan recognize the state of Israel. Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain are not significant states. That is what precisely I meant people of the region stood up against the despots to convey their voices directly to the new leaders of Middle East. The demands are both domestic and international and Palestinian issue is the beating heart of the region.

HAMAS does not call it a peace treaty instead “Hudna” because they do not recognize Israel as a legitimate State (even within pre 67 borders) and whenever right time will come they will take back the land Israel occupied in 1948 not only in later wars (Netanyahu said many times during his election campaign that if election takes place today in Palestine then HAMAS will be the definite winner against Fatah).

60 odd years are not long time in human civilization so is in the case of modern Israeli state, what I foresee is the survival of Israeli state is on stake (you may disagree and your assessment might be contrary of mine).

 

[explorer9]

This is by the by - Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria have all marched on Israel simultaneously before now and failed, often quite miserably. I don't see much has changed to facilitate an Arab victory.

You are right, Arab victory over Israel is even more of a distant dream today. What I tried to explain is that Arab nationalism is in ICU and would be buried with fall of Al-Assad. What replaces ethnic Arab nationalism is religious Islamic Nationalism and that will be much more difficult to handle for US/Israel in long term. Israeli apology and settlement within pre 67 boundaries will not guarantee the peaceful existence of Israeli state as predominant majority in the region does not recognize Israel as a legitimate State instead an unlawful western creation on their land

 

[STURM]

This is by the by - Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria have all marched on Israel simultaneously before now and failed, often quite miserably. I don't see much has changed to facilitate an Arab victory.

The only time all these countries can be said to have marched simultaneously was in 1948 and even then they didn't coordinate their actions well and had troops that were ill trained for the task - even more so than the Israeli's. In 1973, Jordan sent a token contingent to the Golan as a sign of solidarity but King Hussein informed the Israeli's first so they would understand why he did it and so they wouldn't badly maul the Jordanian contingent. King Hussein is even reported to have warned Golda Meir that a war was imminent. Morocco planned to send a dozen F-5s to Syria but the pilots were arrested for being part of a coup plot. The biggest joke [if that's the right word] is that Syria and Egypt both went to war in 1973 for completely different reasons and didn't even bother to tell each other! And the reason they went to war was not to overrun Israel, they knew it was beyond the ability of their armies, that the Americans would come into the picture and that the Soviets would object.

Israel is a political reality and whole region knows that very well, what I tried to explain is the domino effect of changes that are taking place in the region.

Every country there is a political reality and the whole world knows that also! Domino effects are indeed taking place but will not result in the Arabs uniting under a Caliph and all agreeing to march on to Israel, this is an outragous suggestion that does not fit in with hard facts and prsent realities.

Most of the people in the region are waiting for another Saladin to do so.

No offence but you might as well tell me that leftists worldwide are waiting for another Che again and that Italians are waiting for another Duce .... The only people who are waiting for a Caliph [or in your words a Saladin] to lead a future Caliphate stretching from the shores of North Africa to the Gulf of Oman are people like OBL [now deceased off course] and other dreamers, their view is not shared by the majority of Arabs and this was so clearly proven by the Arab Spring, which made AQ and groups like it irrelevant.

If and when the day comes when Arabs take to the streets in their hundreds of thousands demanding that their leaders severe ties with the West, unite all Arab countries into a single political entity with no borders, expel all foreign [read Western] military presence from Arab lands and declare a jihad, then I might start agreeing with you.

Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain are not significant states. That is what precisely I meant people of the region stood up against the despots to convey their voices directly to the new leaders of Middle East. The demands are both domestic and international and Palestinian issue is the beating heart of the region.

And Egypt is not a ''significant'' state? Last I checked, the thousands of people who rallied at Tahir Square did not even mention Israel.... By your logic they would have been demonstrating because Mubarak had closed the Gaza crossing and was being too compliant with U.S wishes not to offend and press Israel, but they didn't did they?

It’s better to study the charter of HAMAS and Islamic Jihad first, only Turkey, Egypt and Jordan recognize the state of Israel.

Turkish/Arab relations in the 1980's and 1990's didn't go as far as the Turks would have wished due to the traditional distrust the Arabs have with the Turks, due to the Ottoman history. The Turks also do not have any land that is occupied by Israel. Egypt signed Camp David [didn't bother to inform its so called Arab partners before doing so] and became beholden to U.S. economic support, and Mubarak's main focus after coming into power was regime survival. Jordan's main fear post-1967 was that Israel would drive the Palestinians onto Jordanian territory [the Israeli's did threaten this] - this would have endagered the very existance of the Hashimite kingdom, thus King Hussein had to play both sides and play nice with Israel, whom he also looked to for protection against Assad the elder.

(Netanyahu said many times during his election campaign that if election takes place today in Palestine then HAMAS will be the definite winner against Fatah).

Well he would say that wouldn't he? What he won't say is that Israel courted Hamas as an alternative to Fatah and he won't say that the Palestnians voted for Hamas as they were totally fed up with the corrupt Fatah. We've gone full circle here, Fatah was a ''terrorist'' group, then it became a ''partner'' for peace when it engaged in talks, then it became a an ''obstacle'' to peace after the talks failed and then became a ''partner'' again when it again agreed to talks but was then ditched by the Palestinians - and now the ''West'' and Israel would prefer that the Palestnians vote for Fatah again....

60 odd years are not long time in human civilization so is in the case of modern Israeli state, what I foresee is the survival of Israeli state is on stake (you may disagree and your assessment might be contrary of mine).

First of all, Israel is a nuclear power, secondly its enjoys the unconditional support of the world's sole superpower, thirdly the Arabs have better things to do and their own pressing problems to address. Like I mentioned before, contrary to what you believe, the average Arab does not go to bed every night dreaming of destroying Israel.

(you may disagree and your assessment might be contrary of mine).

Indeed I do disagree and yes my assessment us totally contrary to yours.