Israel Says It Has Proof That Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

They're foaminfg at the mouth, what more do you want .?

Evidence that it is not one of about a dozen other conditions that can cause foaming at the mouth on death, including but not limited to epilepsy, heart attack, snake bite, and rabies.

As Viking already said, the Israelis (as well as the British and French) need to put up or shut up.  If they have suspicions about specific incidents they should certainly investigate them and share their intelligence with the US and others who could help.  However, they need to stuff the public pronouncements until after they solidify something.

[Malthus]

Fact is that unless Syria unleases a cloud of doom on one of its neighbours, no one will give a shit no matter what they may say otherwise. They could gas thousands of their own folks, it still would not make getting permanently sucked into boots-on-the-ground in Syria any more attractive.

The Israelis are whistling in the wind on this. Even if they could prove it to everyone's satisfaction, the US is unlikely to actually do much of anything, because they don't wanna.

[The Minsky Moment]

Quoting from the Financial Times today:

[Britain and France] informed the UN that there was credible evidence that Syria has used chemical weapons . . . [They] cited soil samples, witness interviews and opposition sources to support the charges.  They said the regime had used chemical weapons in or near the cities of Homs, Aleppo or Damascus.

I also don't get what the Israeli motivation would be to make this up.  Whatever their problems with Assad, it's not like they are eager to see the opposition groups rise to power.

The argument that the Isrealis should "put up or shut up" also makes no sense; it's not like Syria is going to allow Israeli inspectors in to do tests.
The party that needs to put up or shut up is Assad and the UN.  On the UN side, to demand inspections.  On Assad's side, to permit them.  The evidence already is sufficient to justify that.

Otherwise we may as well admit that that the prohibitions on use of chemical weapons are a dead letter.

[Malthus]

Quoting from the Financial Times today:

[Britain and France] informed the UN that there was credible evidence that Syria has used chemical weapons . . . [They] cited soil samples, witness interviews and opposition sources to support the charges.  They said the regime had used chemical weapons in or near the cities of Homs, Aleppo or Damascus.

I also don't get what the Israeli motivation would be to make this up.  Whatever their problems with Assad, it's not like they are eager to see the opposition groups rise to power.

The argument that the Isrealis should "put up or shut up" also makes no sense; it's not like Syria is going to allow Israeli inspectors in to do tests.
The party that needs to put up or shut up is Assad and the UN.  On the UN side, to demand inspections.  On Assad's side, to permit them.  The evidence already is sufficient to justify that.

Otherwise we may as well admit that that the prohibitions on use of chemical weapons are a dead letter.

It's a dead letter. No-one wants to get involved in Syria.

The Syrians must know that by now. They can do whatever they want to their own people, the UN will make noises, the US will make noises, but nothing will happen. If they step outside Syria, bets are off.

[derspiess]

Is chemical weapons where Obama drew the line?  I haven't thought much about Syria lately and my memory is failing me. 

[Neil]

The only reason that I can see that Israel is involved is to make sure that nobody does anything about it.  The Israelis know full well that few people will believe them and that nobody, not even the US, really trusts them.

[Razgovory]

Quoting from the Financial Times today:

[Britain and France] informed the UN that there was credible evidence that Syria has used chemical weapons . . . [They] cited soil samples, witness interviews and opposition sources to support the charges.  They said the regime had used chemical weapons in or near the cities of Homs, Aleppo or Damascus.

I also don't get what the Israeli motivation would be to make this up.  Whatever their problems with Assad, it's not like they are eager to see the opposition groups rise to power.

The argument that the Isrealis should "put up or shut up" also makes no sense; it's not like Syria is going to allow Israeli inspectors in to do tests.
The party that needs to put up or shut up is Assad and the UN.  On the UN side, to demand inspections.  On Assad's side, to permit them.  The evidence already is sufficient to justify that.

Otherwise we may as well admit that that the prohibitions on use of chemical weapons are a dead letter.

I've been a bit fuzzy on Israeli motivations for the last few years now.  I think the wish washy way this is being presented indicates that the Israeli government is divided on the issue.

[Warspite]

Well, having just checked, it is true that the UK and France have outlined concerns that nerve agents have been used (as opposed to other, much less harmful agents that fall under the Chemical Weapons Convention, like riot gas). So while the Israeli statement is still vague, it is apparently backed up by other sources -- and it's not like the UK, France and Israel have ever collaborated secretly on Middle Eastern adventures.

Jokes aside, looks like Obama's red line might have been crossed so we might well see what his interpretation of "game changer" is.

[Tamas]

Well, having just checked, it is true that the UK and France have outlined concerns that nerve agents have been used (as opposed to other, much less harmful agents that fall under the Chemical Weapons Convention, like riot gas). So while the Israeli statement is still vague, it is apparently backed up by other sources -- and it's not like the UK, France and Israel have ever collaborated secretly on Middle Eastern adventures.

Jokes aside, looks like Obama's red line might have been crossed so we might well see what his interpretation of "game changer" is.

Strongly worded letters?

Seriously though, I may be evil, but I don't want American intervention in this. It is horrible but once the surely islamist-heavy opposition wins, non-islamotard parts of the world will be in a much bigger problem than now.

[jimmy olsen]

Fact is that unless Syria unleases a cloud of doom on one of its neighbours, no one will give a shit no matter what they may say otherwise. They could gas thousands of their own folks, it still would not make getting permanently sucked into boots-on-the-ground in Syria any more attractive.

The Israelis are whistling in the wind on this. Even if they could prove it to everyone's satisfaction, the US is unlikely to actually do much of anything, because they don't wanna.

If they gassed thousands of their own folks, or even could be proved definitely to have killed hundreds like that I think Obama would have a lot of pressure to launch an air campaign or lose credibility due to his prior statements.

[Malthus]

Fact is that unless Syria unleases a cloud of doom on one of its neighbours, no one will give a shit no matter what they may say otherwise. They could gas thousands of their own folks, it still would not make getting permanently sucked into boots-on-the-ground in Syria any more attractive.

The Israelis are whistling in the wind on this. Even if they could prove it to everyone's satisfaction, the US is unlikely to actually do much of anything, because they don't wanna.

If they gassed thousands of their own folks, or even could be proved definitely to have killed hundreds like that I think Obama would have a lot of pressure to launch an air campaign or lose credibility due to his prior statements.

Unfortunately, we are quite likely to see. Who seriously thinks that the Syrian government will simply give in to the bayonet-up-the-butt treatment for leaders rather than using all its weaponry, if it is pushed to the wall?

My own guess is that unless the use of gas is so undeniable and widespread that it simply cannot be overlooked, particularly if they use gas outside of Syria itself, what you will see is a 'we will set up a commission to study the situation' or some such. Maybe lob a missile or drone.

After all, killing thousands of Syrian civilians is nothing new or remarkable for this government.

[alfred russel]

Unfortunately, we are quite likely to see. Who seriously thinks that the Syrian government will simply give in to the bayonet-up-the-butt treatment for leaders rather than using all its weaponry, if it is pushed to the wall?

My own guess is that unless the use of gas is so undeniable and widespread that it simply cannot be overlooked, particularly if they use gas outside of Syria itself, what you will see is a 'we will set up a commission to study the situation' or some such. Maybe lob a missile or drone.

After all, killing thousands of Syrian civilians is nothing new or remarkable for this government.

It rarely comes to bayonets up the butt because leaders usually call it a day and escape to some country that will give them asylum. Presumably that is still an option? I think a rational actor would rather skip town instead of make a last stand with nerve gas.

[Viking]

It rarely comes to bayonets up the butt because leaders usually call it a day and escape to some country that will give them asylum. Presumably that is still an option? I think a rational actor would rather skip town instead of make a last stand with nerve gas.

The problem is that virtually nobody is a rational actor. People are dealing with immediate problems, mostly reactively. Root cause analylsis and problem resolution is not only hard but usually very costly (in terms of political capital) and in most cases the rationalisation is, "yes this is the cause of the problem but because of all these other problems we have to deal with we can only afford the cheap short term solution". This is why deep reforms either happen in revolutions (where reforms often cost negative political capital) or in crises.

[Malthus]

Unfortunately, we are quite likely to see. Who seriously thinks that the Syrian government will simply give in to the bayonet-up-the-butt treatment for leaders rather than using all its weaponry, if it is pushed to the wall?

My own guess is that unless the use of gas is so undeniable and widespread that it simply cannot be overlooked, particularly if they use gas outside of Syria itself, what you will see is a 'we will set up a commission to study the situation' or some such. Maybe lob a missile or drone.

After all, killing thousands of Syrian civilians is nothing new or remarkable for this government.

It rarely comes to bayonets up the butt because leaders usually call it a day and escape to some country that will give them asylum. Presumably that is still an option? I think a rational actor would rather skip town instead of make a last stand with nerve gas.

The problem in Syria isn't simply a meglomaniac leader, but the fact that the leader's family lead his whole minority ethnic clan into power - the Alawites. They form like 11% of the population and have been lording it over the rest as a result of the Assad family ascendancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawites

The leader may well wish to escape for a life of luxurious exile, perhaps a Russian Dacha or whatever, but he can hardly take 11% of the population with him, and they *may* have little to lose from fighting to the last ditch - particularly as their most likely opponents are going to be Islamoid fundies who consider them not only hated regime collaborators, but also heretics from orthodox Islam as well. 

[Malthus]

BTW, this adds to US reluctance to get involved. What if the US crushes the Syrian gov't, and the rebels the US supported end up engaging in an Islamic pogrom against the Alawites as a result - which is not an impossible scenario? Involvement may end up with an unlimited commitment to rule the place just to avoid the humiliation of being complicit in massacre.