The rise of a relatively moderate Islamist group in Damascus poses a new challenge for Israel; launching airstrikes that impact the new regime may not be the best idea right now
That's the point, Abdo! Rather than jump to conclusions, it is worth Israel's time to wait before passing judgment. When the interactions are local, not every individual is the same. So far, HTS has behaved toward Israel like no other Islamist group in history.
Well-said, Steve. I agree with your ending statement that we likely must wait for a change in Israel's leadership in order to see Israel moderate it's pre-emptive strikes for security from Syrian strikes. Netanyahu and his administration are certainly still marked by their ignoring of Hamas's attack prep in late 2023, but it remains a dilemma also to anticipate what line of action the HTS regime in Syria will take, both within Syria and relative to Israel. A detente by Israel for a while seems sensible now....
Going to lead a Bolli session on Syria. my 2 questions. should sanctions be limited, should Israel stop bombing. gave them your post and one from Syria seeking on substack
I'm not sure which sanctions you are talking about, but I do believe Israel should stop bombing until it can get a better read on the new government. As we have seen throughout the past year, Israel can attack anywhere it wants with impunity, so there is no urgency to any single attack. Even with these arms depots, Israel has the ability to monitor them, and if it sees militants trying to remove arms, then that would be an appropriate time to attack. Thanks for sharing my post with the others.
You are right when you say that we don't have enough data to know how the rulers of Syria will proceed. So get off the potty, and stop this limited kind of guesswork that we are making but have sufficient sense not to commit ourselves to believing. So far so good, but we simply cannot tell what's next..
Not sure where you're going with that. There is a difference between unanticipated consequences, which we couldn't have known would happen, and unintended consequences, which we know is a possibility but decide to take a risk. I'm talking about unintended consequences. We can tell that the longer Israel stays in Syria and attacks Syrian targets, the more it will risk a backlash that will be more costly than if Israel hadn't taken any action at all. When you act out of fear, you more often than not make the wrong choice, and that's what I sense Israel is doing in Syria, not to mention in other places.
It is not out of fear that Israel has temporarily occupied the de-militarised border zone with Syria and destroyed weapons still stored there. It more like out of love, because with this region protected from the initial effects of a political and military vacuum we need to stop any take-over by a more aggressive power, such as Iraq, Iran or even Turkey. In the longer run, this temporary occupation will hopefully enable Syria's present more moderate Arab leaders, who are new to this job, to get established without the danger of their being challenged by the ISS or other aggressors, who might otherwise creep in unannounced to some places in Syrial which are less obvious for needing protection. And as for resisting backlash, well that's what we do all the time!
Thanks for this excellent analysis. I fear Israel has become its own worst enemy these days.
Great analysis Steven,
I am not optimistic with Islamic groups. All of them are terrorists and It is too early to judge whether this group is terrorist or not.
That's the point, Abdo! Rather than jump to conclusions, it is worth Israel's time to wait before passing judgment. When the interactions are local, not every individual is the same. So far, HTS has behaved toward Israel like no other Islamist group in history.
That's true, Steven, but we shouldn't be too optimistic. Islamic groups have anti-Jewish backgrounds, regardless of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Well-said, Steve. I agree with your ending statement that we likely must wait for a change in Israel's leadership in order to see Israel moderate it's pre-emptive strikes for security from Syrian strikes. Netanyahu and his administration are certainly still marked by their ignoring of Hamas's attack prep in late 2023, but it remains a dilemma also to anticipate what line of action the HTS regime in Syria will take, both within Syria and relative to Israel. A detente by Israel for a while seems sensible now....
Yet another unique, valuable perspective, Steve!
Steve
Going to lead a Bolli session on Syria. my 2 questions. should sanctions be limited, should Israel stop bombing. gave them your post and one from Syria seeking on substack
sound ok?
I'm not sure which sanctions you are talking about, but I do believe Israel should stop bombing until it can get a better read on the new government. As we have seen throughout the past year, Israel can attack anywhere it wants with impunity, so there is no urgency to any single attack. Even with these arms depots, Israel has the ability to monitor them, and if it sees militants trying to remove arms, then that would be an appropriate time to attack. Thanks for sharing my post with the others.
You are right when you say that we don't have enough data to know how the rulers of Syria will proceed. So get off the potty, and stop this limited kind of guesswork that we are making but have sufficient sense not to commit ourselves to believing. So far so good, but we simply cannot tell what's next..
Not sure where you're going with that. There is a difference between unanticipated consequences, which we couldn't have known would happen, and unintended consequences, which we know is a possibility but decide to take a risk. I'm talking about unintended consequences. We can tell that the longer Israel stays in Syria and attacks Syrian targets, the more it will risk a backlash that will be more costly than if Israel hadn't taken any action at all. When you act out of fear, you more often than not make the wrong choice, and that's what I sense Israel is doing in Syria, not to mention in other places.
It is not out of fear that Israel has temporarily occupied the de-militarised border zone with Syria and destroyed weapons still stored there. It more like out of love, because with this region protected from the initial effects of a political and military vacuum we need to stop any take-over by a more aggressive power, such as Iraq, Iran or even Turkey. In the longer run, this temporary occupation will hopefully enable Syria's present more moderate Arab leaders, who are new to this job, to get established without the danger of their being challenged by the ISS or other aggressors, who might otherwise creep in unannounced to some places in Syrial which are less obvious for needing protection. And as for resisting backlash, well that's what we do all the time!
I think Netanyahu's wants as long and broad a war as he can manage to avoid being jailed.