[Marxism] The “Israel backs Jabhat al-Nusra” fairy-tale and its deadly consequences

Joseph Catron jncatron at gmail.com
Fri Jul 3 02:05:24 MDT 2015


"[U]nspecified militias ... to keep Nusra away from the border [sic]"? What
kind of a shitty deal would that be? I don't know who holds the Quneitra
Crossing right now, but Nusra certainly hasn't strayed far from it since
they took it last August.

It's pretty much an iron law of Mideast affairs that the Israelis don't
find themselves on the shitty end of deals. And if they do, they won't stay
there for long! On that basis alone, Ya'alon's position is more likely to
have been reported accurately by ToI.

To be clear, I don't assume either their deals or support are limited to
Nusra. Any agreement in the Golan worth the non-paper it's probably not
written on would have to be multilateral, encompassing a range of actors.
What's the possible use of any other kind?

But I'm a little unclear on the takeaway you propose. Do you suggest that
Israel deputized the Southern Front as its Syrian "border guards"? That
seems useless to me for the reasons above, but also like a conclusion you'd
avoid for political reasons.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Michael Karadjis <mkaradjis at gmail.com>
wrote:

  As for “Israel backs Nusra,” both articles make clear that the purpose of
> any of this aid to unspecified militias is to keep Nusra away from the
> border. The newer article merely adds the condition that they don’t attack
> the Druze
>

-- 
"Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
lytlað."



More information about the Marxism mailing list