• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia concern at Israeli 'air strike' on Syria

Debate what issue?

That you think Israel cannot gather intel on stuff in Syria?
That you think Israel, being incapable of gathering intel in Syria, did this on speculation?
That you think Israel may have committed a war crime?

That's all not debatable. That's all crap. If you wanna debate something, you're gonna have to present something that is not just invented (and ignorant) presumptions.

you can debate these issues:

why Russia issued it's strongest warning yet regarding Syrian war?
what would the international response be to Israel attacking a convoy inside Syria?
is USA going to support Israel in this case or would it remain silent?
what would be Iran's response to this recent development?

or you can debate about me, but that's stupid, since you don't know me.
 
Really? Russia is concerned about a "violation of the UN Charter"? That's a good one.

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, didn't the Israelis bomb the beginnings of a suspected nuclear site within Syria about a decade ago? Didn't Russia within the last decade "invade" its sovereign neighbor Georgia during the Bush Presidency because it wanted to protect its citizens from attack?

The UN Charter is a joke and its only purpose is to shield the world's bad actors.

I agree. I'm not going to analyse international politics in terms of right and wrong because it always plays itself out with balance of power. in this case, if Russia is still behind syrian government to this extent, what would the future look like for the region?
 
this is what I was afraid of:

Syria, Iran threaten retaliation against Israel - World - CBC News

Syria is threatening to retaliate for an Israeli airstrike and its ally Iran says there will be repercussions for the Jewish state over the attack.
On Thursday Syria sent a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stressing the country's "right to defend itself, its territory and sovereignty" and holding Israel and its supporters accountable
 
I agree. I'm not going to analyse international politics in terms of right and wrong because it always plays itself out with balance of power. in this case, if Russia is still behind syrian government to this extent, what would the future look like for the region?

At this time, I suspect Russia is in a posture of "managed retreat" on Syria. It still would prefer that the Assad regime survives, but it wants to position itself as a post-conflict player in Syria regardless of the outcome. It won't run big risks on behalf of the Assad government. It will speak out for what it perceives as violations of Syrian sovereignty, as it hopes to have influence in post-conflict Syria even if its preferred government falls (not a certainty). It will also use its veto in the Security Council to block any resolutions that might introduce foreign military intervention (not a bad idea, IMO, given the messy situation of that country's civil war). In short, Russia is not going to use its power against Israel. It will criticize Israel perhaps take some action short of introducing a Security Council resolution (which would be vetoed by the U.S.), but that's really the extent of it. All said, Russia will not intervene to the extent that the balance of power in the region is altered. Such an attempt to shift the balance of power could actually create an even less stable situation in the region and Russia's interests would not necessarily benefit from that outcome.

Iran probably won't retaliate directly, though it might try to do so indirectly through its proxies e.g., Hezbollah, in a variety of possible ways (probably by supplying more advanced missiles). With Iran remaining defiant with regard to its nuclear activities, Iran can ill-afford to become directly involved in the Israel-Syria affair. Such a move might invite greater international pressure and possibly bring about or hasten Israeli military attacks on its nuclear facilities.
 
Last edited:

IMO, the threat amounts to bluster. President Assad would retaliate if he believed there was a good chance that it would reunify Syria. However, the divisions between Assad and those seeking his overthrow are too deep to be overcome. Retaliation would precipitate an Israeli military response against Assad's military assets that could only further weaken his forces at a time when they already have their hands full in the ongoing civil war.
 
At this time, I suspect Russia is in a posture of "managed retreat" on Syria. It still would prefer that the Assad regime survives, but it wants to position itself as a post-conflict player in Syria regardless of the outcome. It won't run big risks on behalf of the Assad government. It will speak out for what it perceives as violations of Syrian sovereignty, as it hopes to have influence in post-conflict Syria even if its preferred government falls (not a certainty). It will also use is veto in the Security Council to block any resolutions that might introduce foreign military intervention (not a bad idea, IMO, given the messy situation of that country's civil war). In short, Russia is not going to use its power against Israel. It will criticize Israel perhaps take some action short of introducing a Security Council resolution (which would be vetoed by the U.S.), but that's really the extent of it. All said, Russia will not intervene to the extent that the balance of power in the region is altered. Such an attempt to shift the balance of power could actually create an even less stable situation in the region and Russia's interests would not necessarily benefit from that outcome.

I agree with you that it is very unlikely that Russia is going to confront Israel directly, but it can also be said that historically Russia always helped the enemies of United States and Israel behind the scenes (one example is supplying weapons to saddam during US-Iraq war) and has refrained to do so until now because of the expected international repercussions I assume. from now on, Russia can change the balance of power discretely simply by supplying weapons or personnel to Syria without expecting a blow back because of Israel's aggressive act.


Iran probably won't retaliate directly, though it might try to do so indirectly through its proxies e.g., Hezbollah, in a variety of possible ways (probably by supplying more advanced missiles). With Iran remaining defiant with regard to its nuclear activities, Iran can ill-afford to become directly involved in the Israel-Syria affair. Such a move might invite greater international pressure and possibly bring about or hasten Israeli military attacks on its nuclear facilities.

Iran never retaliates directly, because the official foreign policy of Iran is not to surface his support of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. but I already read some articles in Iranian media which are close to government that they mentioned a retaliation would happen sooner or later. granted that this can be just talk, but even the possibility of such thing further escalates the dangers of an already complicated situation.
 
IMO, the threat amounts to bluster. President Assad would retaliate if he believed there was a good chance that it would reunify Syria. However, the divisions between Assad and those seeking his overthrow are too deep to be overcome. Retaliation would precipitate an Israeli military response against Assad's military assets that could only further weaken his forces at a time when they already have their hands full in the ongoing civil war.

I guess we could both agree that Assad's army is so stretched that he is not in a position to attack Israel or retaliate against anyone, but he can bet on the Arabs hatred for the Israel and divert the attention of the states supporting the opposition (Saudi Arabia and Qatar) from himself to Israeli threat. there is still so much pan-arabism and nationalism remaining inside Arabs to be enough to divert them from the civil war a little bit; so Assad may look for such an opportunity.
 
I agree with you that it is very unlikely that Russia is going to confront Israel directly, but it can also be said that historically Russia always helped the enemies of United States and Israel behind the scenes (one example is supplying weapons to saddam during US-Iraq war) and has refrained to do so until now because of the expected international repercussions I assume. from now on, Russia can change the balance of power discretely simply by supplying weapons or personnel to Syria without expecting a blow back because of Israel's aggressive act.

My guess is that one area where Russia might retaliate is to become even less cooperative in the use of its territory for providing supplies to U.S./international forces in Afghanistan. Whether the Karzai government survives or falls is of much less interest to Russia than to the U.S. There are limits to how far Russia would go in terms of blocking international efforts associated with addressing Iran's nuclear activities, as both Russia and the U.S. don't want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapons capability. Indeed, if Russia were able to completely thwart international efforts, that would increase prospects of a use of military force, which would create a more volatile situation in the Mideast.

Iran never retaliates directly, because the official foreign policy of Iran is not to surface his support of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. but I already read some articles in Iranian media which are close to government that they mentioned a retaliation would happen sooner or later. granted that this can be just talk, but even the possibility of such thing further escalates the dangers of an already complicated situation.

I expect an indirect response. Iran almost certainly doesn't want to be perceived as incapable of responding in support of its allies.
 
(one example is supplying weapons to saddam during US-Iraq war)

Citation?

without expecting a blow back because of Israel's aggressive act

Blowback... ok, now I see where you're coming from. The old "terrorist states can do whatever they want and there is no blowback but democracies deserve blowback". It's a stupid term used to blame others.

Iran never retaliates directly, because the official foreign policy of Iran is not to surface his support of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.

What? Iran openly supplies Hez and Hamas. Hamas recently thanked Iran and Iran responded ~"Hey, np, buddies".

I don't understand how you can possible pretend that Iran's policy is to deny supplying terrorists, it's absurd.
 
Last edited:
Citation?

The United States charged the Russians with supposed deliveries of weapons to Iraq. The spokesman of the American President, Ari Fleischer, rejected denials of Moscow and assured that Washington has "evidence" of these deliveries, which could give the Iraqis invaluable assets against the Anglo-American forces. Devices listed are binoculars for night vision, GPS units, and anti-tank missiles. Ari Fleischer said the American government asked the Russians to immediately put an end to its assistance.

Timeline of the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blowback... ok, now I see where you're coming from. The old "terrorist states can do whatever they want and there is no blowback but democracies deserve blowback". It's a stupid term used to blame others.
every action has a reaction, no matter who does it. when osama bin laden attacked US, US attacked afghanistan and taliban was thrown out of power and osama bin laden was killed eventually. one can say that's a blow back too. as I mentioned earlier, speaking of international politics like somehow morals have anything to do with them is too naive. it's never about morals. there is no good and bad.

What? Iran openly supplies Hez and Hamas. Hamas recently thanked Iran and Iran responded ~"Hey, np, buddies".
I don't understand how you can possible pretend that Iran's policy is to deny supplying terrorists, it's absurd.
citation?
also, they would get everybody on their ass if they had admitted that.
 

That was ~3 days after the invasion and Russia was being charged with having done such things. Presumably, any deliveries that may have taken place occured before the deadline and the beginning of the war. Russia denied it.

What I'm wondering is, if you believe this claim by the US, do you believe unsupported, no-evidence and denied claims by the US in general, or only when it serves your purpose.

every action has a reaction, no matter who does it. when osama bin laden attacked US, US attacked afghanistan and taliban was thrown out of power and osama bin laden was killed eventually. one can say that's a blow back too.

Ohhh, please. Not the "everything happened because of something else and therefor everything is connected and nothing and no one can ever be blamed for anything". Goood lord, I don't think I can take that sophomoric stoned crap. If this is what qualifies as philosophy, then we are doomed.

One cannot, cannot, blame their actions on someone else. Everything one does must be legit. If not, one must, absolutely must, blame themself.

as I mentioned earlier, speaking of international politics like somehow morals have anything to do with them is too naive. it's never about morals. there is no good and bad.

That's sick... Pretending there is no right and wrong, no good and evil. It turns my stomach to think that someone would consider a genocidal dictator terrorist state lacking even basic human rights to be the moral equivalent of a liberal western democracy.

Why? Why would a position be so disconnected from reality.

citation?
also, they would get everybody on their ass if they had admitted that.

Ok, you now obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You go find citations, you need them not me. Everyone else here knows Iran openly supplies Hamas.

Let me know when you get on their ass.
 
Last edited:
That was ~3 days after the invasion and Russia was being charged with having done such things. Presumably, any deliveries that may have taken place occured before the deadline and the beginning of the war. Russia denied it.

What I'm wondering is, if you believe this claim by the US, do you believe unsupported, no-evidence and denied claims by the US in general, or only when it serves your purpose.
I'd rather take US's word over Russia's. although, you're right, there's no evidence so it remains a claim.

Ohhh, please. Not the "everything happened because of something else and therefor everything is connected and nothing and no one can ever be blamed for anything". Goood lord, I don't think I can take that sophomoric stoned crap. If this is what qualifies as philosophy, then we are doomed.

One cannot, cannot, blame their actions on someone else. Everything one does must be legit. If not, one must, absolutely must, blame themself.

you can place blame anywhere you want to. all I'm saying is that it doesn't play a role in political decisions which take place. one as a person can judge actions and decisions based on moral or religous grounds, but it doesn't really have a analytic value since that's not a factor contributing to a decision made by the players of the scene.

That's sick... Pretending there is no right and wrong, no good and evil. Oh, it turns my stomach to think that someone would consider a genocidal dictator terrorist state lacking even basic human rights to be the moral equivalent of a liberal western democracy.

Why? Why would a position be so disconnected from reality.
there is a good and evil, and definitely a brutal dictator should get what he deserves. but this kind of thinking does not help predicting the events of future.

Ok, you now obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You go find citations, you need them not me. Everyone else here knows Iran openly supplies Hamas.

there's plenty of evidence that revolutionary guards support hamas and hezbollah, but you can't find a single quote by Iranian president who says that. they always use ambiguous terms and general statements in their supporting arguments and never admit it outright.
 
puff puff pass
 
Why do I keep seeing air strike and attack in quotations? As though that's not what it actually was. I've seen it on at least 4 news sites.

It's not like, "I did not have "sexual relations" with that woman," or "legitimate rape." It was a goddamn air strike. Whether it was justified or not, that doesn't change the fact that it was an attack. I feel like we're constantly trying to justify Israel's actions and sugarcoat them. Bombs were dropped. Things blew up. People died. A preemptive attack is still an attack.

That said, I maintain my belief that we should turn Israel loose and let them reap the consequences if they decide to attack the wrong nation or group. If we won't tolerate aggression from North Korea or Serbia, why should we tolerate it from Israel? Now, if Israel doesn't engage in any sort of provocative actions, and they come under fire from one of their neighbors, then I wholeheartedly support honoring our alliance and putting our boot on that nation's throat. Ideally, we would have a noninterventionist foreign policy, but if we forge a defensive alliance, honor dictates that we must uphold it.
 
Why do I keep seeing air strike and attack in quotations? As though that's not what it actually was. I've seen it on at least 4 news sites.

It's not like, "I did not have "sexual relations" with that woman," or "legitimate rape." It was a goddamn air strike. Whether it was justified or not, that doesn't change the fact that it was an attack. I feel like we're constantly trying to justify Israel's actions and sugarcoat them. Bombs were dropped. Things blew up. People died. A preemptive attack is still an attack.

That said, I maintain my belief that we should turn Israel loose and let them reap the consequences if they decide to attack the wrong nation or group. If we won't tolerate aggression from North Korea or Serbia, why should we tolerate it from Israel? Now, if Israel doesn't engage in any sort of provocative actions, and they come under fire from one of their neighbors, then I wholeheartedly support honoring our alliance and putting our boot on that nation's throat. Ideally, we would have a noninterventionist foreign policy, but if we forge a defensive alliance, honor dictates that we must uphold it.

It has been clear for decades now that Israel is always held to much higher standards than their neighbors who, as we all know, have no real standards at all. At least none from a recent century.

There are real problems going on in the Middle East, and North Africa, while the US president muses about women in the military, or Gay weddings. Obama has led the US military to defeat in two important areas of the world. He intends to weaken this military further with huge spending cuts, and now no one fears them. Other militarizes are growing. He ignores the debt, ignores the international problems and is instead looking at social issues. He is not a man of the world, he is a man of a medium sized community.

This is the guy who gave the Muslim Brotherhood 22 fighter jets and over 200 tanks, while insulting and undermining the leader of Israel. He is abandoning former allies while cozying up to the Russians and Islamist nutjobs.

Barrack Obama has been a horrible mistake, and it will get worse.
 
They know who 'the strong horse' is. Naturally they'll have to side with the Islamists.

they are technically at war with Syria.
 
Israel does as it pleases - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

interesting opinion article.

The prevalent basic assumption in Israel is that it is allowed to do anything. It is rooted deep in its consciousness, and any criticism or even doubt is seen as heresy and treason.

Israel may fly in Lebanon’s sovereign airspace ‏(or any other Arab state’s‏) as often as it desires − that’s taken for granted. It may, of course, bombard anytime that someone foresees danger. It may invade any place, settle anywhere. It may do ‏(almost‏) anything.

The “anything allowed” concept was shaped in the Israeli consciousness on the basis of several assumptions − some solid and justified; some irrelevant; some groundless. These include the Holocaust memory; our exclusive right to the land, being the chosen people; the danger to our survival; the whole world being against us; the Arabs all wanting to wipe us out.

...


The only question raised in Israeli discourse is whether it’s working now. Until now it’s worked. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Sudan and, of course, the Palestinians wiped the saliva, said it was rain and restrained themselves, because they are weak and Israel is strong.

A society agitating over drafting ultra-Orthodox men isn’t even willing to try to doubt whether these bombardments, these daring hush-hush operations beyond the lines, are doing us any good. They’ve worked so far, but were they all necessary? Won’t Israel pay for them one day? Even according to foreign sources, Israel isn’t dealing with that. It’s enough that a handful of politicians and generals have decided what’s good for it, and to hell with all the troublesome questions.
 
Back
Top Bottom