Lebanon, Gaza, and the Syrian-Iranian Axis

Printable View

06-22-2007
AdmiralAdama

Lebanon, Gaza, and the Syrian-Iranian Axis

Walid Phares, middle east scholar and author of Future Jihad, on the Hamas grab in Gaza:

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007...ader_syroi.php

Quote:

The latest dramatic military and terror events in Gaza and Lebanon can be viewed from a regional geopolitical perspective: A Syro-Iranian axis offensive on its (their) primarily western front stretching along the Mediterranean coast.
.
Iran's and Syria's offensives have been well-coordinated on battlefields across the Levant since last January, with a clear escalation since early spring.
06-22-2007
walrus

"Syro-Iranian" what ab great new NeoCon buzzword from another NeoCon website.

Don't you ever get tired of making up ####e?

Anything to make Israel's enemies America 's enemies right?
06-22-2007
AdmiralAdama

I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to. Is there a point that Walid Phares made that you disagree with?

Do you believe that Syrian and Iran are not working together to furhter their interests in the Middle East, and do you believe that Syria and Iran are both funding/supporting Hamas and Hezbollah?

Quote:

Iran And Syria Sign Defense Agreement

by Farhad Pouladi
Tehran (AFP) Jun 16, 2006
Defense ministers from close allies Iran and Syria on Thursday signed an agreement for military cooperation against what they called the "common threats" presented by Israel and the United States. In a joint press conference, Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar and visiting Syrian counterpart Hassan Turkmani said their talks had been aimed at consolidating their defense efforts and strengthening support for one another.
06-22-2007
Mark O'Neill

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmiralAdama

Do you believe that Syrian and Iran are not working together to furhter their interests in the Middle East, and do you believe that Syria and Iran are both funding/supporting Hamas and Hezbollah?

There are four different propositions and a double negative in that question, what exactly are you saying?

The 'expert' that you cite works at a partisan think tank in Washington. Do you suppose that there is any chance that this might influence his opinions ? (and I use the word 'opinion' deliberately).

Your statement implies that there is somehow something weird about sovereign states working to further their interests. How many sovereign states can you name that do not?

I am just curious as to what the point of your thread is - or did Walrus hit the mark in his post?
06-22-2007
goesh

- In The Eye of the Beholder

This group makes Hamas out to be the rightful heirs to solve the palestinian's many problems, saviors, even heroic.

http://conflictsforum.org/

"Anything to make Israel's enemies America 's enemies right?" (Walrus)

When Mubarak of Egypt invited Olmert from Israel, Abbas from the palestinians and Abdullah II from Jordan for a summit, there was not a place at the table for hamas. I suppose a neo-con could construe this to mean Egypt essentially regards hamas as disruptive. With just a tad bit of a stretch of imagination, or if one were an Israeli for instance, one could even surmise Egypt regards hamas as an enemy. I certainly would if I were Mubarak or George Bush, or Abdullah for that matter.
06-22-2007
AdmiralAdama

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark O'Neill

There are four different propositions and a double negative in that question, what exactly are you saying?

Thanks for trying to clean up my grammar. I appreciate it.

My question is whether the respondent believes in the existance of a Syrian-Iranian alliance? If so, why the talk about "neocon buzzwords" and "making up ####e" ? Axis, after all, merely means "partnership" or "alliance" and there's many observers noting this alliance.

Here's Jane's Defence Weekly

Quote:

Iran and Syria have signed a further memorandum of understanding (MoU) on defence co-operation to address what both sides described as "American and Israeli threats".

Citing diplomatic sources, Jane's reported in 2005 that Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki signed a confidential strategic accord on 14 November 2005 with his counterpart Farouq al-Shara and Syrian Prime Minister Naji al-Otari, "which includes a sensitive chapter dealing with co-operation and mutual aid during times of international sanctions, or scenarios of military confrontation with the West".

The sensitive chapter in the accord includes Syria's commitment to allow Iran to safely store weapons, sensitive equipment or even hazardous materials on Syrian soil should Iran need such help in a time of crisis, the sources said. Iranian military aid ranges from "the supply of weapons and ammunition and the training of Syrian personnel to co-operation and continuous transfer of technology and equipment in the areas of weapons of mass destruction [particularly the upgrade of Syrian missile and chemical warfare capabilities], to Iranian troops operating advanced weapon systems in Syria during a military confrontation", the sources added.

Fawaz Gerges here

Quote:

There is a major battle raging in Lebanon between what I call on the one hand the Syrian-Iranian alliance and the American-led alliance in Lebanon.

Here's The Lebanese Daily Star

Quote:

Hizbullah's attitude is only convincingly explained in the framework of Iran and Syria implementing a project to reclaim Lebanon, but more importantly perhaps to eliminate international, particularly Western, involvement in the Levant. After having won in Gaza, Tehran and Damascus are now pushing forward in South Lebanon. Their joint objective, regardless of their different priorities on other matters, appears to be to remove the Siniora government, undermine United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, and create a situation where the international community would have to accept a Syrian return to Lebanon, which would, by extension, scuttle the Hariri tribunal.

Here's the Turkish Policy Quarterly on the Syro-Iranian axis

Quote:

The first converging factor in the Damascus-Tehran relations is their anti-Western (especially anti-American) stance and anti-Zionism. By creating an Arab-Islamic bloc, Iran and Syria aimed to counter the American hegemonic influences in the region and to counter the Israeli threat, as they perceived it.

So I don't think that the existance of an Iranian/Syrian alliance is controversial. That they are funding Hezbollah and Hamas and supporting Iraqi insurgents is also not controversial. Thus, we have here an axis of nations working to frustrate American goals and kill American soldiers. That is something to note, no?
06-22-2007
Steve Blair

Contemporary meaning of axis

Actually, the term "axis" has very specific meaning when used in discourse these days: it is intended to draw a direct line back to Hitler's Germany, seen by many as the ultimate expression of evil (although in a historical sense that's debatable...there are many contenders for that throne). Prior to this, the term wasn't in common use at all. Alliances were alliances, either of convenience (as might be seen with France and Russia prior to World War I or the US and USSR during World War II) or out of ethnic ties (see Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire prior to World War I). There was not an implied linkage "to the death" or automatic connotation of evil...until ol' Benito coined the term "Axis."

While Iran and Syria may have some common goals and objectives, I think it's rather foolish to automatically assume that they are joined at the hip in evil intentions. Alliances in the Middle East historically tend to be very fluid things, used and discarded as convenience dictates (this can also be said for much of the world). Describing them as an Axis carries a specific message...one that I believe is intentional on the part of those using the term.
06-22-2007
AdmiralAdama

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

While Iran and Syria may have some common goals and objectives, I think it's rather foolish to automatically assume that they are joined at the hip in evil intentions. Alliances in the Middle East historically tend to be very fluid things, used and discarded as convenience dictates (this can also be said for much of the world). Describing them as an Axis carries a specific message...one that I believe is intentional on the part of those using the term.

I'd be happy to call them an "alliance" instead of an "axis". Not everything is "just like in World War II".
09-17-2007
goesh

-Nuke Potential In Syria Compliments of Iran or N. Korea - ?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297034,00.html
"JERUSALEM — Israel's chief of military intelligence was ordered not to discuss an alleged air raid on Syria before a powerful parliamentary panel, tightening the veil of secrecy the government has thrown around the issue.

Tzachi Hanegbi, chairman of parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee, said he instructed Israel's military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin to avoid any mention of Syria at a committee meeting Sunday. Panel members regularly report to journalists during and after committee meetings.

In a statement some participants saw as an oblique reference to the alleged Syria raid, Yadlin told the meeting, "Israel's deterrence has been rehabilitated since the Lebanon war, and it affects the entire regional system, including Iran and Syria," according to a lawmaker who was present.

The lawmaker spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the meeting's contents to the media.

Foreign news reports have suggested that Israel struck a Syrian site designed to make non-conventional weapons, possibly a nuclear installation built with North Korean help.

John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., told Israeli Channel 10 TV he thought Israel might have been attacking a nuclear installation, "a message not only to Syria, but to Iran."
09-17-2007
Rex Brynen

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmiralAdama

Walid Phares, middle east scholar and author of Future Jihad, on the Hamas grab in Gaza:

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007...ader_syroi.php

To be honest, I find Phares' analysis to be underwhelming (to say the least).

The Hamas take-over in Gaza was not driven by decisions taken by the Damascus-based leaders (let alone by Damascus or Tehran), but rather by Hamas Executive Force and Izz al-Din Qasim Brigade commanders on the ground and local hardliners (such as Zahar)--coupled with the unanticipated rapidity and totality of the Fateh collapse.

The same blog entry blames the battles between the Lebanese Army and Fateh al-Islam on the Syrians too, although there is no real evidence for this either (and plenty of evidence that Fateh al-Islam grew on its own, benefitting from the collapse of Syrian-backed Fateh al-Intifada as well as the particular security and political vacuum in Nahr al-Barid refugee camp).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark O'Neill

The 'expert' that you cite works at a partisan think tank in Washington. Do you suppose that there is any chance that this might influence his opinions ? (and I use the word 'opinion' deliberately).

Walid Fares was a member of the Lebanese Forces (Christian militia/party) during the civil war. That having been said, his analysis should be treated on its own merits, not based on past and present affiliations.

In turn, that also having been said, I think his analysis is rather exaggerated, as I've posted above.
09-18-2007
Tom Odom

Not to worry...the Admiral who started this thread is off battling Klingons or whatever...they are as I am certain you know also part of the Syrian-Iranian Axis founded by....

D. Evil :D

Best

Tom
09-18-2007
Rex Brynen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Not to worry...the Admiral who started this thread is off battling Klingons or whatever...they are as I am certain you know also part of the Syrian-Iranian Axis founded by....

D. Evil :D

mu-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

(For the record, those would be Cylons, not Klingons.)
09-18-2007
Sarajevo071

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

mu-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

(For the record, those would be Cylons, not Klingons.)

But very cute Cylons this time!
:D :D :D
10-31-2007
goesh

- fighting by proxy

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

"UN: Hizbullah has replenished missiles, Dan region in range"
12-19-2007
Sean Osborne

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmiralAdama

... do you believe that Syria and Iran are both funding/supporting Hamas and Hezbollah?

Yes. I think it's fact.

Here's a report on recent coordinated activity involving Iranian intelligence, Syrian intelligence and Tehran-based Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mughniyah. This report might properly be categorized as OSINT I&W for some near-term state-sponsored terrorist operation in the Levant.

Yalibnan, 17 Dec 07: Iranian intelligence official visits Lebanon

Quote:

Beirut - A senior Iranian intelligence officer arrived in Lebanon the week of Dec. 9, and Imad Mughniyah, Hezbollah official in charge of foreign operations accompanied the officer to his meetings there, Stratfor sources said Dec. 16.....
12-19-2007
Rex Brynen

For the most part, one can assume that the vast majority of OSINT on Imad Mughniyah 's movements are little more than RUMINT. One can also assume that a large amount of Stratfor reporting is RUMINT too. I guess that makes it RUMRUMINT. :D

Yes, there is deep cooperation between Iran, Hizbullah, and Syria. Hamas does likely receive some Iranian funding, but it isn't its primary source, nor is it Iran's closest Palestinian connection (PIJ would be). Indeed, there's a degree of suspicion and arms-length in the Hamas-Iran connection, with the relationship something of a political liability for Hamas in the WB/G (hence the current Fateh anti-Hamas rally cry of "Shi'a! Shi'a!").
12-20-2007
Sean Osborne

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

For the most part, one can assume that the vast majority of OSINT on Imad Mughniyah 's movements are little more than RUMINT.

Rex,

Don't be too quick to dismiss this as RUMINT. That might be a bit of a rash assumption to make with respect to Imad Mughniyeh.

An article written by Magnus Ranstorp in July of 2006 ( counterterrorismblog.org ) might provide some insight. The first paragraph:

Quote:

Hizballah’s decision to kidnap the two IDF soldiers was taken by Sheikh Hassan Nasserallah and the other six members of the Shura Karar, its supreme decision-making body. Additionally there are two Iranian representatives (from the Iranian embassy in Beirut/Damascus) that provide a direct link on matters that require strategic guidance or Iranian assistance or arbitration. The file for handling special operations of this kind is usually left to Imad Mughniyeh, the elusive terrorist mastermind for Hizballah, who stands with one foot within Hizballah (reporting to Nasserallah directly) and with one foot in Iran inside the architectures of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) and the al-Qods unit within the Iranian Pasdaran. Mughniyeh is strictly reserved for special occasions (like the Buenos Aires bombing in 1992 to avenge the Israeli assassination of the previous leader Sheikh Abbas al-Musawi) and his primary mission over the last decade has been to forge qualitative ‘military’ guidance to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives inside Gaza and the West Bank.

IF Imad Mughniyeh was in Lebanon and acting in the role reported in the linked Ya Libnon report, then something might be in the offing.
12-20-2007
Rex Brynen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Osborne

Don't be too quick to dismiss this as RUMINT. That might be a bit of a rash assumption to make with respect to Imad Mughniyeh.

No assumptions being made. As is widely acknowledged, a primary reason that Mughniyya is still alive and so effective is precisely because he practices very careful tradecraft.

Quote:

“Mugniyah is probably the most intelligent, most capable operative we’ve ever run across, including the KGB or anybody else. He enters by one door, exits by another, changes his cars daily, never makes appointments on a telephone, never is predictable. He only uses people that are related to him that he can trust. He doesn’t just recruit people. He is the master terrorist, the grail that we have been after since 1983.”

Robert Bauer, "Shadow Warrior," 60 Minutes, 1 May 2002.

That ya Lubnan and Stratfor have cracked this seems, frankly, unlikely.
12-20-2007
Sean Osborne

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

As is widely acknowledged, a primary reason that Mughniyya is still alive and so effective is precisely because he practices very careful tradecraft.

Absolutely.

When it comes to this terrorist I would ordinarily agree with you, his OPSEC most likely would have no chance of being cracked by the sources noted.

However, note that the cited report has beau coup specifics about people, places and itinerary that is extraordinary and almost certainly did not originate with Stratfor. I doubt they'd make such detail up out of the ether. I would tend to think that kind of info would almost have to be HUMINT-based.

Don't know if another dot connects, but Hezbollah concluded a massive 3-day exercise a couple of weeks ago which was clearly in violation of UNSC 1701. Something might be brewing. Not saying it is or isn't, but might be.
12-20-2007
Ron Humphrey

One would think something would be

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Osborne

Absolutely.

When it comes to this terrorist I would ordinarily agree with you, his OPSEC most likely would have no chance of being cracked by the sources noted.

However, note that the cited report has beau coup specifics about people, places and itinerary that is extraordinary and almost certainly did not originate with Stratfor. I doubt they'd make such detail up out of the ether. I would tend to think that kind of info would almost have to be HUMINT-based.

Don't know if another dot connects, but Hezbollah concluded a massive 3-day exercise a couple of weeks ago which was clearly in violation of UNSC 1701. Something might be brewing. Not saying it is or isn't, but might be.

As usual not trying to over simplify things but wouldn't it make sense that with the all the efforts in regards to this particular area right now, one would assume their not just going to sit on their duffs.

They'll try something now if we knew the what rather then the who, ;)
12-21-2007
bourbon

General Ali Reza Asgari was Mughniyah's primary Iranian contact in the 80's, and its been reported they had good relationship. I imagine Mughniyah has had to change some of the ways he operates after Asgari's defection. So maybe its a counter intelligence move by Mughniyah to test new support networks, a canary trap or something.
12-21-2007
Sean Osborne

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey

As usual not trying to over simplify things but wouldn't it make sense that with the all the efforts in regards to this particular area right now, one would assume their not just going to sit on their duffs.

They'll try something now if we knew the what rather then the who, ;)

Ron,

Just my 0.02 worth... no doubt about it... virtually every category of I&W (and even harmonics of them) seem to be screaming that a conflagration from Gaza, to WB to the Lebanon-Syrian frontier is getting ready to kick off.

Israel has not fought a war on three fronts simultaneously in a very long time. Previous wars saw the IDF secure one front before moing to the next, and then the next. All three at the same time is what the IDF has been training up for this go 'round.

A result more spectacular for the IDF than '67 may surprise a lot of folks -- that's the gist of what some current and former IDF soldiers are hinting at lately.

bourbon,
The link you note between Gen Ali Reza Asghari and Imad Mughniyeh is an overlooked item at the minimum. It is much appreciated that you brought it up. Can't help but wonder if Ashghari's defection (if real and not an Iranian red herring) is really the intelligence coup some portary it to be. One might think a significant part of the Hezbollah-Iranian-Syrian C2 would be quite compromised as a result.
12-21-2007
Penta

I am unwilling to believe that, Sean. (For one thing, if they could, WHY would Israel have bothered with Annapolis?)

Be careful to decouple wishes from probabilities.
12-21-2007
Sean Osborne

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penta

I am unwilling to believe that, Sean. (For one thing, if they could, WHY would Israel have bothered with Annapolis?)

Penta,

Just relating what has been collected from several current and former IDF soldiers, some of whom are 'Hayal Boded' (Lone Soldiers). This info is as close to real HUMINT as I'm capable of collecting.

The IDF has been mobilizing by all accounts since at least early November. Some of that mobilization was in prep for possible terrorist action prior to the Annapolis Summit. Since then the units have not stood down. Israeli DM Barak has been hinting strongly that a major IDF operation against HAMAS in Gaza is possible to very likely. Circumstances will dictate. Several individuals have stated to me that a major IDF action in Gaza would not commence until after a mass-casualty rocket attack on the civilian population in places like Sderot or elsewhere in the western Negev. (Related to this is that terrorists have increased the lethality of rocket-borne warheads and appear to be attempting to strike an elementary school. Such an attack nearly succeeded today in Sderot.) It would seem that provoking such an IDF operation may be what HAMAS and its allies are attempting to do.

The IDF may be reluctant to lauch a full-scale operation in Gaza due to political considerations. Once the IDF takes all of Gaza from HAMAS to whom do they then give it to? Fatah? Not likely. The IDF has to have their post action planning done first and by all acounts this aspect is unresolved. Still, there is the toleration threshold that may make this point moot.

Remember the pattern from summer 2006 - HAMAS operations in the Gaza front were duplicated by Hezbollah on the Lebanese front and that led to a short but furious war which the IDF had not planned or prepared for. That mistake will not be repeated this time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penta

Be careful to decouple wishes from probabilities.

Nobody but the terrorist enemy appears to desire another major war. Attempting to murder school children enmasse makes this a fact. Therefore decoupling of the info I collect from the probabilities of another significant conflict in the Levant is not something which needs to be addressed. To the contrary, the dots require connecting.
12-21-2007
Penta

I would disagree:

1. If Hamas and friends want the IDF to attack Gaza, there's a reason.

That reason? If the IDF goes back in to Gaza, they are not going to leave again. Not in a few weeks, not in a few months, not in a few years.

Especially if there's a mass-casaulty attack, doubly so if it's against an elementary school or preschool.

You're endowing the Israeli Gov't with far too much control over the situation, I think, then they do now or ever have had.

Last I checked, Ohlmert's approval ratings were rather tiny, and the final release of the Winograd report on the Lebanon affair of 2006 is supposed to come out -after- Bush's visit to the region; it'll probably aim directly at Olmert.

So, add all this up: Why do you think it wouldn't just lead to the resignation of the current government?
12-22-2007
Sean Osborne

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penta

I would disagree:

With what part? All, some, or something specific? What exactly is the basis of your disagreement? What is the source of information that guides your disagreement; would you care to cite the source(s)?

Quote:

1. If Hamas and friends want the IDF to attack Gaza, there's a reason. That reason? If the IDF goes back in to Gaza, they are not going to leave again. Not in a few weeks, not in a few months, not in a few years.

No doubt about it there's a reason. And no doubt that Israel has not yet identified an exit strategy after the war with HAMAS - I made this same point ("post action planning") above.

Aside from the (potentially moot) political consideration mentioned in my post, it is a given that Israel will totally annihilate HAMAS and its allied terrorist proxies military capabilities during any coming operation in Gaza. HAMAS et al will cease to exist as a fighting force. Gaza will be pacified and demilitarized.

The purpose of the Gazan terrorists provoking an IDF incursion/invasion of Gaza is guided by an ill-conceived Iranian/IRGC/Qods Froce stratagem - to inflict similar damage upon the IDF in Gaza as was effected against US/Coalition troops in Iraq by Iranian-supplied insurgents and Qods Force terrorists. The Iranian's would like nothing more than for their proxies to make Gaza a military quagmire for the IDF, to tie down and hold engaged a sizeable chuck of the IDF combat power in attrition warfare.
This stratagem is doomed to failure.

Quote:

You're endowing the Israeli Gov't with far too much control over the situation, I think, then they do now or ever have had.

On the contrary, you are reading my assessment incorrectly. The regard I hold for the Olmert-led Kadima Party appeasers is rock-bottom. The implementation/execution of Sharon's unilateral disengagement in Gaza has yielded exactly the same net result as the withdrawal from southern Lebanon - a haven for Iranian proxy terrorists and never-ending war.

This is why the IDF has done the work necessary to execute the "7-Ps" :

Proper Planning & Preparation Preempt Psss Poor Performance in the anticipated Gaza operation.

Quote:

Last I checked, Ohlmert's approval ratings were rather tiny, and the final release of the Winograd report on the Lebanon affair of 2006 is supposed to come out -after- Bush's visit to the region; it'll probably aim directly at Olmert.

No doubt about this either irregardless of when the check was done. I was saying the same thing in the wake of the Hezbollah war in August 2006. The Olmert government is finished and the sooner they are forced from power the better.
12-22-2007
Rex Brynen

a few quick observations

A few quick observations.

No, Hamas is not trying to provoke an IDF entry into Gaza. PIJ and the PRC might be, in a limited way, but Hamas is trying to play a game of strategic deterrence (which is why they and the Israelis are simultaneously discussing, albeit indirectly, conditions for a ceasefire). This isn't to say Hamas is playing it well, but this is certainly what they hope for.

Rocket fire across the border was an anticipated (but not hoped for) outcome of Israel's disengagement from Gaza. If Sharon were in a condition to talk, he would argue that the net outcome has still been positive: lower Israeli casualties, blame shifted to the Palestinians, consolidation of control over the main settlement blocks in the West Bank. He wouldn't be very happy about Annapolis, but I doubt he would regard it as having very bright prospects.

The IDF was spectacularly unsuccessful in preventing the growth of Hamas in Gaza the last time it was occupied. There's no reason to think they would be much better at it a second time around. A much more likely response is short-duration ground operations and more sustained air operations--what some in the IDF term a "Lebanon-style retaliatory policy."

Hamas enjoys good relations with Syria and Iran. Neither outside actor has much influence over their behaviour (indeed, even the Damascus-based leadership has lost influence since the Gaza takeover).
12-22-2007
Sean Osborne

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

A few quick observations.

No, Hamas is not trying to provoke an IDF entry into Gaza.

Rex,

Is this your considered opinion or do you have supporting information in the form of HUMINT or otherwise?

Quote:

PIJ and the PRC might be, in a limited way...

Targeting elementary school children in an attempt at cold-blooded mass murder is not limited anything - it is in fact Unrestricted Warfare by definition.

Trust me, the IDF response to a mass casualty attack of this sort will be anything but a limited response pointed out above.

Quote:

Hamas is trying to play a game of strategic deterrence (which is why they and the Israelis are simultaneously discussing, albeit indirectly, conditions for a ceasefire).

I doubt very seriously that Israel and HAMAS are involved in negotiations- third-party good offices notwithstanding. Only people like Shlomo Ben-Ami advocated such abject nonsense and that was before HAMAS violent takeover of Gaza from Fatah. Moreover, there is nothing for Israel to gain in negotiating what would be nothing more than a 10-year hudna with HAMAS when Israel has the power to annihilate them lock, stock and AK-47 barrel.

Quote:

The IDF was spectacularly unsuccessful in preventing the growth of Hamas in Gaza the last time it was occupied.

99.9% of HAMAS currently military prowess in GAZA has been achieved since the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza - most of it smuggled in via tunnels from Egyptian Sinai.

Quote:

There's no reason to think they would be much better at it a second time around.

Of course. Next time HAMAS will cease to exist as a viable military force along with all the other terrorists in Gaza.

Quote:

Hamas enjoys good relations with Syria and Iran. Neither outside actor has much influence over their behaviour (indeed, even the Damascus-based leadership has lost influence since the Gaza takeover).

Good relations? They are de facto allies. Iran has bought HAMAS loyalty and strategic warfighting capability with tens of millions of dollars.
12-22-2007
Rex Brynen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Osborne

Targeting elementary school children in an attempt at cold-blooded mass murder is not limited anything - it is in fact Unrestricted Warfare by definition.

Most of the crude, home-made rockets that they are firing are lucky if they have a CEP of a km. They are certainly targeting civilian towns (itself a grave breach of IHL), but they are not particularly aiming at schools.

On the issue of negotiations, I deliberately refrained from using that word. However, the IDF has made it clear (as recently as today) that they will modify their military posture if Hamas will stop the rocket fire. Whether that happens is another issue--it is not at all clear that everyone in Hamas, let alone PIJ et al, would agree.
12-23-2007
JeffC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Osborne

Rex,

Of course. Next time HAMAS will cease to exist as a viable military force along with all the other terrorists in Gaza.

I'm interested in hearing how you believe that Israel will accomplish this feat. Are you anticipating a nuclear attack?
12-23-2007
Sean Osborne

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffC

I'm interested in hearing how you believe that Israel will accomplish this feat.

Have you seen what has happened to Al Qaeda in Iraq before, during and after 'the Surge'?

I leave to your imagination what will happen to terrorist warfighting capabilities confined to an easily isolatable box approximately one-third the size of the entire city of Baghdad. HAMAS has no where to hide, their tunnels will be their graves.
12-23-2007
JeffC

Barak, Mubarak to discuss truce with Hamas in Egypt Wednesday

Quote:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak is scheduled to meet Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Sharm el-Sheikh on Wednesday to discuss efforts to reach a temporary truce between Israel and Hamas.

On his one-day visit, Barak will also meet with intelligence chief Omar Suleiman and Defense Minister Mohammed Tantawi.

The two sides will also discuss the problem of arms smuggling from Egypt into the Gaza Strip and the negotiations to secure the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who is being held in Gaza.

On the possibility of a limited cease-fire with Hamas, Barak has told defense officials in the past few days that currently "there is nothing to talk about" with Hamas.

But Barak said that if Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader in Gaza, can achieve a a suspension of Qassam rocket fire at Israel, and if Hamas is prepared to accept the terms posed by the international Quartet, there may be room to reexamine Israel's position. The Quartet's conditions include a disavowal of terror and a recognition of the Oslo Accords.

This will be Barak's first visit to Egypt since taking office last June. Several attempts were made over the past few months to arrange such a visit, which was repeatedly delayed. Israeli defense officials said that a time has not been confirmed for the meeting at Sharm el-Sheikh.

http://www.worldpress.org/feed.cfm?h...ubContrassID=1