In Public Shift, Israel Calls For Assad's Fall

[Purveyor]

Source: REUTERS

By Dan Williams
JERUSALEM | Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:38am EDT

(Reuters) - Israel wants to see Syrian President Bashar al-Assad toppled, its ambassador to the United States said on Tuesday, in a shift from its non-committal public stance on its neighbor's civil war.

Even Assad's defeat by al Qaeda-aligned rebels would be preferable to Damascus's current alliance with Israel's arch-foe Iran, Ambassador Michael Oren said in an interview with the Jerusalem Post.

His comments marked a move in Israel's public position on Syria's two-and-1/2-year-old war.

Though old enemies, a stable stand-off has endured between the two countries during Assad's rule and at times Israel had pursued peace talks with him in hope of divorcing Syria from Tehran and Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah guerrillas in neighboring Lebanon.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-syria-crisis-israel-idUSBRE98G0DR20130917

[Ash_F]

1. You would think your arch foe would be someone who attacked you at least once. /nt

[strikeforce]

3. iran said when they get the a-bomb

they will wipe israel off the face of the earth. what part of that don't you understand ?

[Ash_F]

4. That's adorable.

Welcome to DU. Here is some water to put out that hair-fire.

[Purveyor]

5. You have a credible link to that "iran said"? I would love to see it... eom

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. please provide a link to where Iran said that when they get the bomb they will

wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. What part of "misquoting on purpose" don't you understand?

Ahmadinejad was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini.

Remember him?

The guy Reagan sold 1,000 TOW Missiles?

[Uncle Joe]

11. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei has already issued a Fatwa (religious decree) banning

nuclear weapons.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101625062

WASHINGTON - The Barack Obama administration's new interest in the 2004 religious verdict, or fatwa, by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei banning the possession of nuclear weapons, long dismissed by national security officials, has prompted the New York Times to review the significance of the fatwa for the first time in several years.

Senior Obama administration officials have decided to cite the fatwa as an Iranian claim to be tested in negotiations, posing a new challenge to the news media to report accurately on the background to the issue. But the April 13 New York Times article by James Risen rehashed old arguments by Iran's adversaries and even added some new ones.

Former Obama White House Iran policy coordinator Dennis B Ross, known for his close ties with Israel and hardline views on Iran, was quoted as suggesting that Khamenei may not be committed to nuclear weapons after all. But Ross implies that the reason is United States sanctions and perhaps the threat of war rather than that the 2004 fatwa was a genuine expression of policy.

The Times report repeated a familiar allegation, attributed to unnamed "analysts", that the fatwa is merely a conscious deception justified by the traditional Shi'ite legal principle called taqiyyah. But a quick fact check would have shown that taqiyyah is specifically limited to hiding one's Shi'ite faith to avoid being killed or otherwise seriously harmed if it were acknowledged.

[Iliyah]

2. DUH

[azurnoir]

7. Israel has been pretty quiet up until now

wonder if this new public stance will have much influence here?

[rexcat]

8. I would think that Israel...

would at least prefer a know entity like Bashar al-Assad rather than an unknown entity that could end up being much worse than Assad. There are more than a few terrorist organizations fighting against the Assad regime who could end up in power and don't particularly like Israel.

Since we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan the region has become a tender box. Just can't imagine why!

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. Better Al Qaeda than Assad, he says. Alrighty, then.

[Celefin]

12. Makes sense in its own way

If/when Al Qaeda is victorious and consolidates its power in Syria it gives the US the perfect pretext for an invasion; there is no way an 'Al Qaeda state' will be allowed to exist. This invasion will then take out the most important regional enemy and also cut the Hezbollah militias off from any support. Added benefit: all important streams and catchment areas will come under US and thereby Israeli control.