Global, Israel, Politics

Israeli Leaders call for 'regime change' in Syria

“I think there needs to be change in Syria,” said Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres according to a report by the Associated Press.
Ephraim Halevy, former chief of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, said it was not necessary to prove a direct involvement by Assad. “The head of the Syrian pyramid is Bashar Assad,” Halevy told Israel Army Radio.
Israeli legislator Yuval Steinitz, head of parliament’s Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee, called for regime change in Damascus. “As far as I am concerned … and here I have a dispute with some of the people in the (Israeli) security establishment, it is not just an American interest but a clear Israeli interest to end the Assad dynasty and replace Bashar Assad,” said Steinitz, a member of Israel’s ruling Likud Party.

8 thoughts on “Israeli Leaders call for 'regime change' in Syria

  1. Would you prefer that innocent Syrians live under the brutal authoritianism of Assad for another 30 years?
    I think we need a more thorough examination of the motives of those who do NOT want to see Assad removed. Unless another equally brutal dictator takes his place –which is a legitinate possibility– what possible reason can there be to support state “soveriegnty” when the murderous son of a murderous father has plans to keep *his* country in the dark ages for another generation or two?
    Btw, for the sake of consistency, I firmly believe that Robert Mugabe should be assassinated as quickly as possible.

  2. It is true that Assad is a horrible racist dictator who needs to be removed. There is no doubt about that. But, the use of military action would wrong for several reasons: A) It would most certainly be illegal B) It would yield a massive amount of civilian casulties and C) Feed even more anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment into a place that does not need any more. I would be surprised if American forces actually attacked Syria. The oil reserves are nothing compared to Iraq. There are no UN sanctions against Syria (although there should be, I’ll get to that in a minute). And America is too bogged down in Iraq to commit further troops it does not have to fight Syria.
    I think the best option would be the UN. Use the UN to pressure Syria, if they can. No military action, however. But, hey that’s my opinion.

  3. Actually Assad has been making peace overtures to Sharon and has been ignored:
    “JERUSALEM: Ariel Sharon’s government dealt a blow to hopes of a thaw in the Israeli-Syrian chapter of the Middle East peace process with a defiant move to build hundreds more homes on the occupied Golan Heights.
    The move was a slap in the face to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who has repeatedly voiced his willingness to reopen talks with Israel four years after they broke down.
    At the beginning of December, Assad called on the United States to support renewed negotiations with the Jewish state so as to normalize the two neighbours’ relations and defuse the volatile situation on Israel’s northern border.
    He had stressed that negotiations should resume where they left off in January 2000 between his late father Hafez and Sharon’s Labour predecessor Ehud Barak, but Sharon had already responded on Sunday that they should start from scratch.
    With the change of regime in Iraq and growing US pressure leaving little room for Syria to take a tough stance, there had been calls in Israel not to give the cold shoulder to Syria’s offers.
    Senior Israeli Labour MP Haim Ramon charged that “the only goal of the (settlement) plan was to torpedo any chance of new negotiations with Syria“.”

  4. I have to say I support regime change in Syria. Syrian children will doubtless welcome our soldiers w/ chocolates, and it’s likely a pro-western, secular regime that will be friendly to Israel will replace Assad and help w/the Mosul-Haifa pipeline as an added bonus. If we do not fight terrorism in Syria, it will come to America. This is about freedom.

  5. John:
    You honestly believe Assad? I know you don’t believe any Israeli leader or spokesperson, but who says Assad is any more trustworthy?
    That’s a just a PR ploy on the part of Syria.

  6. The big problem (as I am sure the Knesset is aware) is in pushing the American goyim too far. Yes, Iraq will now be split into three warring territories, and yes, Syria could likely also be split into two or three warring territories, and yes as long as they are attacking each other it works to Israel’s advantage
    That being said, however, goy America will likely rebel. As the numbers of illegal aliens increase, as Bush becomes more and more of a lame duck, as the deaths from Iraq keep growing, goy America is likely to pull the Middle Eastern plug in a more permanent way.
    Consider Britain. After 1948 with only 30 years in the middle east and only a handful of soldiers and diplomats killed by Jewish and Arab terrorists, they got the hell out, dumping the whole mess for good.
    Persuade goy America to start another front, get even more goy soldiers killed and there’s a good chance you could see the same response.
    No, getting more Americans killed in Syria and subsidizing another total makeover of an Arab nation just won’t fly, I am afraid.
    You might get the US to help the Jewish nation attack Iran, though.

  7. Jared Goldberg wrote: “You honestly believe Assad? I know you don’t believe any Israeli leader or spokesperson, but who says Assad is any more trustworthy?”
    I believe Assad wanted to sit down at a table and negotiate – yes. It would be too easy to call his bluff if he was lying, and then he would look really bad. Whether or not anything productive would have come of it is anyone’s guess. But instead Sharon decided to slap Syrians in the face with further settlement plans. It seems completely retarded to me, as settlements in the Golan Heights are not worth keeping Syria as an enemy when it’s not necessary IMO.
    Where do you get the idea that I “don’t believe any Israeli leader or spokesperson” ? It’s true that I don’t believe Ariel Sharon and Likud want peace. And Ariel Sharon has been in power for the entire time I’ve been writing for JewSchool. But it should be self-evident that Sharon is not in any way representative of all the Israeli politicians or all Israelis. I have no doubt that Rabin was serious about peace, for instance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.