Amazon.com Widgets

Monday, July 17, 2006

Michael Oren in TNR: Why Israel Should Bomb Syria

...By 1967, ten years after the Sinai Campaign, the Arab-Israeli dispute had settled into an uneasy status quo. The radical Egyptian regime of Gamal Abdel Nasser still proclaimed its commitment to liberating Palestine and throwing the Jews into the sea, as did its conservative rivals in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, but none of these states made any attempt to renew hostilities. On the contrary, Egypt remained quiescent behind the U.N. peacekeeping forces deployed in Sinai, Gaza, and the Straits of Tiran since 1957. Jordan maintained secret contacts with the Israelis. Israel, for its part, had long learned to ignore bellicose Arab rhetoric and to seek backdoor channels to even the most vituperative Arab rulers. As late as April 1967, officials at Israel's foreign ministry were speculating whether Nasser might be a viable partner for a peace process.

But one Arab state did not want peace. Syria, then as now under the rule of the belligerent Baath Party, wanted war. Having tried and failed in 1964 to divert the Jordan River before it crossed the Israeli border--IDF jets and artillery blasted the dams--the Syrians began supporting a little-known Palestinian guerrilla group called Al Fatah under the leadership of Yasir Arafat. Using Lebanon as its principal base, Al Fatah commenced operations against Israel in 1965 and rapidly escalated its attacks. Finally, at the end of 1966, Israeli officials felt compelled to retaliate. But, fearing the repercussions of attacking Soviet-backed Syria, they decided to strike at an Al Fatah stronghold in the Jordanian-controlled West Bank...

And thus began a series of events that culminated in the '67 war. Oren's prescription for the current crisis? Punish Syria now, demonstrate that there's a price to be paid for supporting terror.

...Back in 1966, Israel recoiled from attacking Syria and instead raided Jordan, inadvertently setting off a concatenation of events culminating in war. Israel is once again refraining from an entanglement with Hezbollah's Syrian sponsors, perhaps because it fears a clash with Iran. And just as Israel's failure to punish the patron of terror in 1967 ultimately triggered a far greater crisis, so too today, by hesitating to retaliate against Syria, Israel risks turning what began as a border skirmish into a potentially more devastating confrontation. Israel may hammer Lebanon into submission and it may deal Hezbollah a crushing blow, but as long as Syria remains hors de combat there is no way that Israel can effect a permanent change in Lebanon's political labyrinth and ensure an enduring ceasefire in the north. On the contrary, convinced that Israel is unwilling to confront them, the Syrians may continue to escalate tensions, pressing them toward the crisis point. The result could be an all-out war with Syria as well as Iran and severe political upheaval in Jordan, Egypt, and the Gulf.

The answer lies in delivering an unequivocal blow to Syrian ground forces deployed near the Lebanese border. By eliminating 500 Syrian tanks--tanks that Syrian President Bashar Al Assad needs to preserve his regime--Israel could signal its refusal to return to the status quo in Lebanon. Supporting Hezbollah carries a prohibitive price, the action would say. Of course, Syria could respond with missile attacks against Israeli cities, but given the dilapidated state of Syria's army, the chances are greater that Assad will simply internalize the message. Presented with a choice between saving Hezbollah and staying alive, Syria's dictator will probably choose the latter. And the message of Israel's determination will also be received in Tehran...

I disagree that it's so sure that Assad will "internalize" the message. It's just as likely that absorbing a blow without at least a face-saving counter would in itself spell the end of the Assad regime. Isn't that how things work in the Middle East? That's not to say that it would be the wrong thing, or the right thing to do, but an attack on Syria would not be cost free.

[h/t: isirota1965]

4 Comments

Was the Israeli buzzing of Assad's summer palace a warning that they might attack, should nothing change?

Would Iran really back up Syria in the event of an Israeli attack like they said they would?

I wonder if we will find out soon?

Good questions.

Buzzing Assad's house is something they seem to do occassionally:
http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/000965.shtml

Syria needs to be bombed and the shelling of Lebanon needs to be stopped except in the South.

If you read Totten, Big Pharaoh and LP you see that Israel is doing Syria's work there and sending the Lebanese center and left right back to Syria's arms. Israel needs a land invasion of the south and to bomb the shit out of Syria and its army bases now.
http://dailyscorecard.blogspot.com/2006/07/after-awe-its-sad-evil-wins-good-leave.html

Olmert needs to go on the LBC and speak directly to the Lebanese people NOW.

Mike

I'd love to get five minutes with Assad. Just me and him and a quiet room. It wouldn't solve all of the problems but I'd feel better.

Yawp!

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Search


Archives
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]